Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HYTHE, KENT, MARINA BILL

Ordered,
That the Committee on the Hythe, Kent, Marina Bill have leave to visit and inspect the areas affected by the proposed works and their environs, provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visit and that any party who has made an appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by his agent or other representative.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

South Africa

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he intends any change to the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the subject of sanctions and South Africa; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Mr. Douglas Hurd): Our policy is unchanged. We want to see the abolition of apartheid and the peaceful transition to a democratic multiracial system in South Africa. We shall maintain our policy of encouragement and pressure on all sides to enter into negotiations on a new constitution. I welcome the decision of the South African Government to lift the state of emergency, except in Natal.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is widespread recognition in South Africa that sanctions have been one of the key contributory factors to the present and welcome change in the position of the South African Government? Does he further accept that the appropriate response from the Government and European Community would be to retain the present structure of sanctions until the remaining legislation and obstacles to negotiations are finally removed, and to respond, as and when negotiations develop, to the creation of a new constitution by the removal of sanctions during that period? Prompt action would be inappropriate.

Mr. Hurd: We are not planning to remove all sanctions, but we see the need to give practical proof that we are encouraging President de Klerk in the dramatic steps that he is taking, at great risk to himself and his party, towards a new South Africa without apartheid. I believe that those moves are irreversible.

Mr. Burt: Is my right hon. Friend encouraged by the successful talks that are taking place between the business community and the mass democratic movement ill South Africa, including the African National Congress? Does he agree that the need is to maintain pressure on the South African Government for the speediest possible reforms? It is only through political reform and change that we shall lay a sound economic basis for the future of South Africa, as all sides wish.

Mr. Hurd: The right mix of pressure and encouragement must be achieved. The business community in South Africa is well placed to do that. It has recognised for a long time that an apartheid South Africa is bad for investment and bad for the prosperity of all South Africans.

Mr. Anderson: The Foreign Secretary said that the Government are not planning to remove all sanctions, yet the Prime Minister said in the House:
I believe that there is now no place for sanctions"'.—[Official Report, 22, May 1990; Vol. 173, c. 167.]
It is not our job to drive a wedge between the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, but will he use his considerable skills to reconcile what are, on the face of it, fundamentally different propositions?

Mr. Hurd: The Prime Minister has often defended, at the European summit and in the House, the step-by-step approach that we are practising. We are moving step by step to encourage the South Africans as they move, while maintaining pressure on them. The sanctions issue is becoming yesterday's argument. It is no longer the most effective means of pressure. The pressures that we have exercised have shown themselves to be effective.

Middle East

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives are currently being considered to help advance the peace process in the middle east.

Mr. Hurd: My recent visit to the middle east has convinced me more than ever of the urgent need for direct dialogue between Palestinians and Israel. I can see no other starting point for a genuine peace process. We shall continue to work for that with our friends in the region and elsewhere. The grim alternative to dialogue is extremism and more killing.

Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. If the United States withdraws from dialogue with the Palestine Liberation Organisation for not condemning the attack on an Israeli beach, shall we support the United States? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with Iraq and Libya heading towards having a nuclear arsenal and with the Israelis having an extreme Government, we should be encouraging world opinion to bring about peace in that part of the world?

Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's second point. We must not forget, as the other problems in Europe and South Africa yield to treatment, that the problem in the middle east is getting worse and more poisonous.
On my hon. Friend's first point, we have urged the PLO to condemn the attack on the beach in Israel. It is important that the United States should remain fully


engaged in the peace process, which means maintaining the contacts that have led to the understanding with the PLO about the Baker plan.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Given the gross violations of human rights that occur regularly on the west bank and in Gaza—the most recent of which was the throwing of grenades into a United Nations clinic yesterday—does the right hon. Gentleman think that this is the most appropriate time for the Prime Minister to co-sponsor an Israeli state of the art exhibition at the Barbican centre in October? Does not he think that it would be much more helpful if the Prime Minister made it clear that she regards the failure by the Israeli forces to behave properly on the west bank and in Gaza as a stopping point on any further co-operation between this Governent and Israel?

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Minister of State and I have never been slow to condemn the excessive use of force by Israeli security forces in dealing with the intifada. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and all friends of the Palestinian cause are prepared to condemn individual terrorist attacks. It is not enough simply to say that they are against terrorism.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Although new settlements on the west bank do not help the peace process, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is worth while pointing out that Soviet Jews emigrating to Israel are not moving to the west bank in sizeable numbers, contrary to what we sometimes read in the world press?

Mr. Hurd: There is some dispute about the figures. If east Jerusalem is included among the occupied territories—we certainly include it—the situation is different. We need from the new Government of Israel—I very much welcome the fact that there is a new Government—a clear statement and practical measures to ensure that Soviet Jews do not settle in the occupied territories. We welcome the fact that they are able to leave the Soviet Union.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Kaufman.

Mr. Kaufman: Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in condemning the attempted terrorist attack in Israel a few days ago? Will he join me also in welcoming the statement made after that attack by the PLO, in which it said that the PLO
oppose and denounce any military action that targets civilians"?)
I am interested in the fact that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the formation of a Government in Israel who are totally opposed to any genuine peace process. Will he send a message to the new Israeli Government that the peace process is more vital than ever? Will he make it clear that a policy of settlements in the occupied territories is unacceptable to both sides of the House?

Mr. Hurd: I have already made the second-to-last point clear in my previous answer. I believe that a Government in Israel is better than no Government. The peace process has been completely stymied for weeks because there has been no Government. I hope that, now that there is a Government, all the friends of Israel can begin to persuade them that they should play a positive part in the peace process.
While I was in the middle east, I condemned the attack on the Israeli beach. I note what the PLO has already said;

I just wish that it would go that much further because that would make it much easier for the United States to remain constructively engaged, which I believe is crucial.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that this will help hon. Members who are concerned about not being called. I draw their attention to the fact that I am constantly being urged to speed up Question Time, and that is what I am seeking to do. Moreover, I am today giving some precedence to those who were not called during questions on the Prime Minister's statement yesterday.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member was called. I call Mr. Snape.

Short-range Nuclear Weapons

Mr. Snape: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to discuss the future of short-range nuclear weapons with the United States Secretary of State.

Mr. Hurd: I met Mr. Baker and other NATO colleagues at the North Atlantic Council meeting held at Turnberry on 7 and 8 June. NATO agreed at that meeting that negotiations on United States and Soviet short-range nuclear weapons systems in Europe should begin shortly after a conventional forces in Europe agreement is concluded.
We shall continue to keep in close touch with the United States on this subject as we prepare for the NATO summit in London from 4 to 6 July.

Mr. Snape: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the best thing to do with these relics of the cold war would be to return them to the United States of America? If he is not prepared to do that, will he tell the House against whom he anticipates the weapons ever being deployed?

Mr. Hurd: They are there to deter any aggressor in the future.

Mr. Favell: My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) mentioned the problems in the middle east. As so many nasty regimes in that area still possess very nasty weapons, would not it be a mistake for us to throw down our arms at this stage?

Mr. Hurd: What we agreed at Turnberry—as has been agreed many times before and as will be agreed many times in the future—is that the 16 NATO allies need an appropriate and sensible mix of nuclear and conventional forces at the lowest level consistent with our security needs. That mix of forces, under an integrated command, is designed to deter attack on our area from any quarter.

Mr. Kaufman: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it was that a few days before President Bush announced that there would be no modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons, the Prime Minister was alone in NATO in continuing to advocate the modernisation of such weapons? Will he ask the Prime Minister to stop doing what she was doing yesterday—that is, jabbering on about the NATO flexible response


strategy, given that the intermediate nuclear forces treaty and the American decision not to modernise short-range weapons mean that that strategy is dead?

Mr. Hurd: Not for the first time, the right hon. Gentleman is confusing two issues. He is confusing the follow-on to Lance, which is what President Bush has abandoned—he consulted my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Bermuda before making the announcement—and the general position of NATO, which my right hon. Friend continues to emphasise. I do not know what the Labour party's position is, but our position is the one that I have just stated: we need a sensible mix of conventional and nuclear weapons, including weapons below the strategic level, to protect our security.

Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty

Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he intends to have with other Governments in advance of the non-proliferation treaty review conference.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): The United Kingdom is one of the three depositary powers of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and we consult regularly with the other depositary powers and other interested parties.

Mr. Strang: Following the successful military use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, should not we be even more terrified at the prospect of countries such as Argentina, Iraq and Pakistan—to name only three—developing nuclear weapons? Is not the best contribution that the British Government can make in this matter to hasten progress towards a comprehensive test ban treaty? Only if the nuclear weapons states make progress in that direction can we have the maximum impact against the proliferation of nuclear weapons in third-world countries.

Mr. Waldegrave: I share the anxiety that the hon. Gentleman expressed in the first part of his question. We were interested in President Mubarak's initiative for the middle east. The extension of the non-proliferation treaty would he the best way of carrying the matter forward, in the middle east and elsewhere. On the partial test ban treaty, the hon. Gentleman will know the Government's position, which was shared by the Labour party when it was in power: as a nuclear state, we must have the right to test our weapons to ensure that they work.

Mr. Churchill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great concern in this country and throughout the democratic world about the prospect of some of the tinpot military dictatorships in the middle east acquiring a nuclear and biological weapons capability allied to a long-range delivery system? Is not it time for us to work closely not only with our European partners and our American allies, but with the Soviet Union, so that those countries are effectively persuaded not to go ahead with those programmes in the year ahead?

Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with my hon. Friend that the only way to avoid what would be a very unstable and inefficient attempt to set up a complex deterrent system in the middle east would be the spread of the nonproliferation treaty. That is the objective of our diplomacy.

Sir David Steel: Does the Foreign Office accept that the greatest possible nuclear flashpoint has now moved from Europe to the middle east? Amid all the hope and excitement in eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and South Africa, will the Foreign Office make it a priority to secure a settlement in the middle east that will stop that flashpoint becoming a reality?

Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. There are perhaps two dangerous flashpoints at the moment—one in Kashmir and the other in the middle east. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already conveyed the sense of urgency that the Government feel about progress in the middle east.

Drugs Trade

Dr. Twinn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to assist the international community to strengthen its offensive against the drugs trade.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): We are vigorously pursuing action internationally against drugs. We hosted the recent world ministerial drugs summit in London, and are playing a leading role in United Nations and European Community anti-drugs co-operation. We have expanded our overseas drug-related assistance programmes, and have so far signed 15 bilateral agreements or arrangements for tracing, freezing and confiscating the proceeds of trafficking.

Dr. Twinn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. I know his deep concern about the international drugs trade. Can he confirm that we are unlikely to make much progress in tackling that evil trade until we have the fullest possible international co-operation among as many countries as possible.?

Mr. Sainsbury: I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the need for international co-operation. One of the very welcome aspects of the world ministerial drugs summit was that 127 countries unanimously agreed on the need for international co-operation to counter drugs trafficking.

Ms. Abbott: Does the Minister agree that we shall not make progress in fighting that evil trade until we seriously address the problem of crop substitution? The economies of many third-world countries are heavily dependent on the production of marijuana and cocaine. Will the Minister assure the House that the Foreign Office is continuing its support for the sugar protocol?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am sure that the hon. Lady recognises that alternative development or crop substitution is one of the important ways in which that trade can be countered. That is only one way, but it is something which we recognise as important. Indeed, our support for the United Nations fund for drug abuse control, which plays a leading role in alternative development, is evidence of our support for crop substitution and alternative development. Indeed, we are the fifth largest donor to UNFDAC.

Political Union

Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in formulating the United Kingdom position on political union; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hurd: We are active in all those Community discussions. I set out our views in some detail in the debate in the House on 11 June.

Mr. Gill: With regard to subsidiarity, my right hon. Friend will be aware of the necessity to protect the best features of our national and local democracy. What assurance can he give the House that that will amount to more than crumbs from the European Commission's table?

Mr. Hurd: I listened to my hon. Friend's particularly interesting speech on that theme on Monday, and I commend it to the House. The powers of the European Community are not vested in the Community and then, as it were, the Community lets us have some crumbs from the table. It is the other way round. In the treaty of Rome, the treaty of accession and the Single European Act, this country, this Government and this Parliament have given certain clearly defined powers to the Community. Therefore, those powers cannot be increased without the same process and amendment of the treaties.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Secretary of State recognise the inconsistency of European politicians who speak about political union and who, at the same time, use every opportunity to restrict movement within the European Community? Does he deplore the partitionist policy of the Dublin Government in forbidding their citizens to have day-trip shopping in Northern Ireland? Does he condemn the decision of the Dublin Government yesterday to defy the European Court, which condemned the 48-hour shopping restriction?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is right. There is an occasional and lamentable gap between the Europe of phrases and the Europe of facts, and it is part of our job in this country to try to bring the Europe of facts into line. I assume that bonfires are burning on the mountains of Mourne today as a result of the European Court's decision against the Republic. I am sure that the Irish Government will pay proper, due regard to the findings.

Mr. Marlow: No one is quite sure what is meant by European political union. If further powers are to be given to European institutions with regard to the initiation of policy, will my right hon. Friend undertake on behalf of the House that, if there is to be further policy initiation by the European Community, it should be done by elected bodies and not by the civil service or Treasury?

Mr. Hurd: We now know more clearly what political union does not mean. Thanks to the answers to questions that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put at Dublin, it does not mean doing away with our basic national institutions or powers of peace and war. What will happen under that heading is a search for greater effectiveness of the Community's institutions, and part of that is democratic accountability. We believe that there is a stronger role in that process for national Parliaments

—not just this House—across the Twelve. It is encouraging that that view is held increasingly in other member states as well.

Mr. Robertson: I am sure that the whole House will be gratified that the Prime Minister has been able to save the monarchy at one fell swoop in her discussions at Dublin. Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the speech made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry last Tuesday, when he advocated a future Europe of two speeds, with Britain at the second and lower speed? On Thursday, the deputy Prime Minister advocated an integrated Europe, with Britain not in an outer circle, in the same way as Austria, and incapable of influencing events that are going on there. Is the Foreign Secretary in the Ridley camp, the Howe camp, or has he a tent of his own?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman will achieve even greater performance in his political career if he actually studies the texts that he describes before manufacturing differences that do not exist. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is not suggesting that Britain should in some way be in a secondary position. What we are doing is maintaining a central position by active, constructive and, I hope, agile thinking in all the discussions. It is not in our interests that we should be left behind or be negative in the discussions.

Latin America

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with the Latin American countries.

Mr. Sainsbury: We have excellent relations with the countries of Latin America, and strongly support the return to democracy in the region.

Mr. Arnold: Is my hon. Friend aware of the widespread unease in Latin America because of our concentration on events in eastern Europe? What reassurance can my hon. Friend give our Anglophile friends in Latin America that that concentration will not lead to a reversal of the growing interest that we are now showing in the region?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to have this opportunity to reaffirm our interest in the region and to assure my hon. Friend that in no way does our interest in important events in eastern Europe detract from the importance that we attach to our relations with Latin America. Indeed, I draw his attention to the fact that several distinguished Latin American leaders, including the Presidents of Mexico and Colombia, and the President-elect of Brazil, have recently visited London.

Mr. Dalyell: What agile thinking are the Government giving to the speech in the western Amazon of President Collor de Mello who, unlike President Sarney, is in favour of debt-for-nature swaps?

Mr. Sainsbury: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we give a great deal of thought to the assistance that we can give to protect the environment, particularly the tropical and rain forests of Latin America and Brazil. Debt-for-nature swaps is one issue which has been raised and one suggested way of achieving better protection which will certainly receive consideration.

Mr. Rathbone: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will apply ever more agile thinking, particularly in terms of economic support and ensuring that the European Community is outward looking, to ensuring economic stability, without which political developments cannot be successful?

Mr. Sainsbury: We certainly attach the greatest importance to economic stability and progress towards greater prosperity in the region because that is an important way of supporting democracy. The European Community is taking an active interest in seeing what it can do to promote trade in the region. Recently it reached an agreement with central American countries to that end.

Middle East

Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest progress towards the release of British hostages held in the middle east.

Mr. Waldegrave: The recent release of two American hostages is a welcome development. We very much hope that it will be followed by the release of all hostages in Lebanon. Those events show that Iran and Syria can, if they wish, use their influence effectively to bring about the release of hostages. We urge them to persevere. The holding of hostages, whether in Lebanon or elsewhere, is wrong in itself and in no one's interest.

Mr. Evans: Will the Minister acknowledge that, besides British hostages, nationals of many countries are held captive in the middle east? Does he agree that incarcerating innocent individuals will not solve the many difficult problems of that region? Will he consider convening a conference in London, under United Nations supervision if necessary, to try to reach common agreement that the tactic of kidnapping individuals for political reasons will be abandoned and that all captives will be released?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is right. The House, with its natural concern for British citizens, concentrates on them, but many other people are held, and more Lebanese than any other nationality. I am interested in his suggestion. It is already against all international and national laws to hold hostages. I doubt whether such a conference would take us much further forward, but we rule out nothing and try to discuss these matters in every available forum.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in efforts to assist the hostages, the best way of pursuing parliamentary relations and diplomacy with Iran is through a properly constituted parliamentary exchange with the Iranian Majlis which should consider not only the hostages but all aspects of our relations, including hostages?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am aware of the suggestions for a parliamentary delegation. That could help. Those who are concerned, including my hon. Friend, are in touch with the Foreign Office about it.

Mr. Winnick: Is not the taking of hostages a most barbaric action which causes immense strain and torture, first and foremost to the victims, but also to their loved ones who, month after month and year after year, simply

do not know whether the person is alive or dead and, if alive, under what circumstances? Does the Minister agree that with or without a delegation to Iran or any other action, it is essential that the Government, together with the Opposition in this Parliament, make it clear that there can be no appeasement of those who are responsible for kidnapping? If there were such appeasement, it would undoubtedly be an incentive for further kidnapping.

Mr. Waldegrave: I agree wholeheartedly with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I have spent many hours with the families of the British hostages—both the Waites and the McCarthys. I pay tribute to Mr. McCarthy senior, who is one of the most remarkable people I have ever met. The hon. Gentleman is right that there can be no question of appeasement in any of these matters. But it is vital to see whether genuine misunderstandings can be removed and to improve background relations if we can. None of those who hold hostages, whether Israel, which took Sheikh Obeid last year, the Hezbollah groups or others, advance their cause by so doing.

Mr. Hind: Does my right hon. Friend agree that agile thinking is needed when considering the problem of hostages? Does he agree that the way to do so is to develop stronger links with Iran and, preferably, eventually to re-establish full diplomatic relations with that country? Only through that process shall we be able to put pressure on those in the Lebanon who hold British hostages and eventually persuade them to release their hostages.

Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, but we should remember that Iran broke relations with us. We believe that we have some legitimate complaints against Iran, including the problems with Mr. Rushdie and Mr. Cooper and the influence which we know that Iran can now exercise over hostage groups. None of that means that we should not explore the signals that are being sent from Iran. We welcome what Mr. Moussavian said recently in the interview with The Sunday Times. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary made it clear that there was no question of the British Government or the British people wishing to insult Islam or any other of the great religions.

Antarctica

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has had expressing concern about non-scientific activities in the British Antarctic territory.

Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he is taking to ensure that the environment is protected in Antarctica.

Mr. Sainsbury: We have received representations from many hon. Members and members of the public. We fully support and comply with the relevant obligations under the Antarctic treaty system and the Antarctic minerals convention, which offer the best possible means of protecting the Antarctic environment.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister accept that any commercial exploitation of mineral reserves in Antarctica would cause intolerable environmental damage? Does he agree that the Government's position to date will have the practical effect of allowing industrial diggers to slip in via


the back door? Will he give the House a categorical assurance that he will support the creation of a world park for Antarctica to give some protection to that last unspoilt corner of the planet?

Mr. Sainsbury: I fear that the hon. Gentleman has not studied either the provisions of the minerals convention, the history which led to its being on the table, or the widespread support for it of most of the nations that are parties to the Antarctic treaty. Our objective is to achieve the best possible protection for the Antarctic environment. In the absence of a minerals convention, there is nothing to protect the Antarctic against mineral exploitation and exploration. I hope that the hon. Gentleman wants that protection to be in place as soon as possible.

Sir Russell Johnston: Does the Minister accept that we have before us a proposal from the French and Australian Governments for a wilderness reserve and a proposal from the West German Government for a 50-year moratorium? Both are enlightened and workable solutions. Why do not we support them? Is not it time that we were on the side of the goodies just for once?

Mr. Sainsbury: I repeat my answer to the hon. Gentleman. If he studied the history of the Antarctic treaty system and the protection that it has provided to the Antarctic for 30 years, and if he would realise that it has taken about 10 years to arrive at an agreement on the minerals convention—in the absence of a minerals convention there would be no protection for the Antarctic environment—he would surely welcome that convention coming into force as soon as possible. We can move on from that to a comprehensive further package of environmental protection which we look forward to discussing at the next meeting in Santiago later this year. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that other proposals that have been put on the table by no means command unanimous support and, therefore, cannot be implemented. In the absence of the implementation of such proposals, surely a minerals convention that can command support is worth having.

Mr. Hill: Does my hon. Friend agree that we must not have the sort of deadlock that occurred over the problem of fishing for whales when almost all the whales in the southern hemisphere were slaughtered? I fully realise that my hon. Friend will take a compassionate view of this matter because we are the party of environmental protection. This could be the first major environmental issue for the Conservative party. There must be a compromise. Some part of Antarctica must be preserved for nature and for future generations.

Mr. Sainsbury: I assure my hon. Friend that the minerals convention provides the strictest regime of environmental protection anywhere in the world. It is by no means a charter to allow the exploration or exploitation of mineral resources. Indeed, it is not known whether there are substantial mineral resources in Antarctica. The convention provides for exploration to be carried out only with the consensus of the parties to the Antarctic treaty, who would give priority to ensuring that environmental protection was built into any action that might be taken.

Mr. Summerson: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the minerals convention is not supported, the Antarctic treaty

system may collapse? If that happens, the whole continent of Antarctica will be open to exploitation by other countries.

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am sure that we all agree—at least I hope we do—that it would be disastrous if the Antarctic treaty system collapsed, especially given its success over the past 30 years in providing protection to the Antarctic, keeping peace in the region and eliminating territorial disputes. The minerals convention would add substantially to the protection of the Antarctic environment. I hope that we shall see its early agreement and then move to a comprehensive package of environmental protection.

Mr. Foulkes: Why does not the Minister now accept that, as we predicted when we opposed the Antarctic Minerals Act 1989, Australia, France, New Zealand and other countries will never sign the minerals convention because it is a prospectors' charter? Therefore, at the very least, at Santiago in November will the Minister support the German compromise for a long-term moratorium on mineral prospecting in Antarctica? If he does not, the United Kingdom will once again be totally isolated and the Prime Minister's "green mantle" will be shown up for the fraud that it is.

Mr. Sainsbury: I seem to remember that the attitude of the Labour party to that Act was inconsistent. It changed its mind during the Act's passage. The hon. Gentleman seems to have overlooked the fact that 19 countries support the minerals convention. Therefore, it is wrong to talk about isolation and even more in error to refer to the minerals convention—which, as I said, provides the most stringent regime of environmental protection anywhere in the world—as in any way a charter for mineral exploitation.

Horn of Africa

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the situation in the Horn of Africa.

Mr. Waldegrave: In both Ethiopia and Somalia fighting has continued between Government and rebel forces with consequent suffering for the civilian population. We have participated actively in efforts to promote negotiations which offer the only prospect of lasting solutions and of tackling the problems of famine, refugees and underdevelopment.

Mr. Bennett: From the Minister's reply it is clear that he accepts—as, I am sure, does the whole House—that many people in both countries are still suffering from the effects of famine now and that it is likely that that famine will damage children, if they survive, for the rest of their lives. Will he redouble his efforts to bring peace to the area because only by ending the conflict can the problems of famine in the short term and of the long-term development of the area be tackled?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is right that the underlying restoration of peace is vital. We welcome the steps that have been taken by Mr. Nyerere and President Carter to get talks going on Ethiopia. There now seems to


be some hope of them making progress; the Ethiopians have accepted the idea of a United Nations observer and we hope that the Eritreans will respond.

Mr. John Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only other country in the African continent that can assist with resources is South Africa, which is already doing what it can? Therefore, when Mr. Mandela visits my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in July [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has a right to put his supplementary question in the way that he thinks proper.

Mr. Carlisle: When Mr. Mandela visits my right hon. Friend in July, will he impress upon him that his sanctions policy is futile, and out of date and will deny the peoples in the Horn of Africa the assistance that they could get from a prosperous and economically strong South Africa, which is anxious to help them?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is true that the most powerful economy of the continent should be governed by a just and proper constitution and that all the people should share in the ownership of the economic assets and in the political system that controls them. It is true also that those who seek to damage that economy for no other reason, as far as I can see, than to support an outdated position on sanctions are not helping the continent.

Cambodia

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to review the Government's position on the seating of Cambodia at the United Nations when the matter comes before the credentials committee later in the current year; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Sainsbury: With our EC partners we are reviewing our policy towards Cambodia's representation at the United Nations. In doing so we shall be taking into account the efforts of a range of countries, notably the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, to achieve a comprehensive political settlement.

Mr. Mullin: May I draw the Minister's attention to a report by Mr. Raoul Jennar on the situation in Cambodia in which he states that because of the termination of aid from eastern Europe the Government in Cambodia will not survive for more than six to 18 months, and that the only force capable of filling the vacuum is the Khmer Rouge? Will he give an undertaking that in no circumstances, in September or October when the decision arises in the United Nations, will we vote again for the coalition which contains the Khmer Rouge?

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that active negotiations are taking place to achieve a comprehensive political settlement. That is surely the right way to achieve lasting peace and stability in Cambodia. We hope that the negotiations, with the United Nations playing a leading role, will enable us to establish a supreme national council which would occupy the seat for Cambodia at the United Nations. We must not anticipate the outcome of the negotiations, but we cannot want them to fail.

Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is offensive that the seat at the United Nations for the Cambodian people should be held by people who are at least the henchmen of Pol Pot? Will my hon. Friend do everything in his power to ensure that the United Kingdom and the international community stand up to those people, especially at a time when the offensive by the Khmer Rouge forces is getting closer to Phnom Penh?

Mr. Sainsbury: I assure my hon. Friend that we have made clear on numerous occasions our repugnance for the Khmer Rouge regime. We have not supplied assistance to it of any kind at any time. The objective must be to achieve peace and stability in Cambodia through a comprehensive political settlement, and that is the end to which we are working with our partners among the permanent representatives at the United Nations. I hope that we shall succeed in time for a supreme national council to represent Cambodia at the United Nations.

Europe (Security and Reconstruction)

Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State For Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent consultations he has held with other Foreign Ministers of the European Community concerning security and reconstruction in Europe.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Francis Maude): My right hon. Friend has attended meetings with all or some European Community Foreign Ministers in Ireland on 19 to 20 May, in Copenhagen on 5 June and at the NATO meeting at Turnberry on 7 to 8 June.

Mr. Boswell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the climate is now extremely positive and is based on a common recognition of the dual importance of the European Community as the motor for European economic reconstruction and of the Atlantic alliance as the necessary umbrella of security? Within and outside them, does my hon. Friend agree that political co-operation between the European states and the conference on security and co-operation in Europe process, bringing in the superpowers on the edge of Europe, is also extremely important?

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the different but sometimes overlapping roles of the various bodies. There is a growing consensus among member states that the Community's principal role must continue to be the economic one in which it has already been extremely successful. There is a strong view in NATO that it must remain the underpinning strength of the security system in the west. My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the possibilities for expanding and enhancing the role of the CSCE.

Mr. Tony Banks: Given that the Government have done a deal with the French to locate the new European development bank in London, will the Minister support the application by the London borough of Newham to have that bank located in Stratford, or at least somewhere within the bounds of the people's republic? Will he acknowledge that the people of Newham have suffered so much and for so long under capitalism that we should at least gain some of the minor advantages of having the bank located there?

Mr. Maude: I am delighted to hear of the London borough of Newham's enthusiasm for this symbol of capitalism. No doubt Mr. Attali, the president of the new bank, will listen carefully to its request; but the location is a matter for the bank to decide, not us, although of course we are giving it every help in its search for premises.

Sir Peter Blaker: Has my hon. Friend seen reports that yesterday President Gorbachev referred to a union of sovereign states as a possible solution to the problems arising between the Baltic republics—and other republics in the Soviet Union—and the central Soviet Government? Is not that a positive concept? Will the Government do what they can, in consultation with their Community colleagues, to support that idea in the Soviet Union?

Mr. Maude: The matter must be resolved between the Baltic republics and the Soviet Union. It is good news that there are signs of flexibility, and I hope that a dialogue can take place quickly to resolve what is, at the moment, an unhappy position.

German Unification

Mr. Andrew Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's current policy on German unification.

Mr. Hurd: We warmly welcome the prospect of German unification. I am working with the Foreign Ministers of the United States, France, the Soviet Union, the two Germanies and others concerned to settle the external aspects of German unification as soon as possible.

Mr. Welsh: What will be the status of a reunited Germany in relation to the European Community? Will a reunified Germany have to apply for membership of the Common Market, or will it automatically become a member?

Mr. Hurd: East Germany proposes to join West Germany under article 23 of the Federal German constitution, which provides for such a move, and the European Community is taking account of that. If the hon. Gentleman has at the back of his mind the notion that Scotland could slip quietly out of the United Kingdom and quietly back into the European Community as a new and separate member, that is richly absurd.

Mr. Wilkinson: In her statement to the House yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that President Gorbachev had discussed with her the possibility of the Federal Republic of Germany's being called on to pay the costs of the repatriation of Soviet troops from the DDR under any withdrawal plan. Was any figure put to the Prime Minister, and was any discussion entered into with the Federal German Government about the matter?

Mr. Hurd: That is not primarily a matter for us. As far as I know, no figure was put to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in that discussion. I would expect there to be contacts and discussions between the Soviet Government and the Federal German Government if that point were to be pursued.

Middle East

Sir David Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new initiatives Her Majesty's Government have taken recently to help the middle east peace process.

Mr. Waldegrave: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given earlier by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Sir David Steel: Does the Minister agree that there has so far been a wholly inadequate response by Israel to the initiatives taken by the PLO leader in recognising that state and in restraining terrorism? In the absence of pressure from the United States, will he consider a European Community initiative to persuade Israel to pursue the path of peace?

Mr. Waldegrave: Many times the general consenus in the House has been to urge a positive response from Israel to the steps that were taken in Algiers by the Palestine National Council and the PLO. We hope, although with some foreboding, that the new Government in Israel will make such a response. I do not rule out a role for Europe. Doubtless my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be discussing the middle east at the next meeting of Foreign Ministers.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that in the House and in the world there is a great feeling for world Jewry and the problems that they suffered in the great war? But does my right hon. Friend also accept that there is a feeling that the new Government in Israel are set upon a path that may drag us all into another conflict from which nobody could gain? Will he urge the new Government in Israel to accept that the Palestinians have a right to their place in the sun that shines on them all, as does every other people? If they do not adopt such an attitude the Israeli nation—the Jewish people—will lose a great many friends.

Mr. Waldegrave: I would be a little careful about associating Jewish people with the policies of the state of Israel. We had our arguments with the previous Government of Israel, but there are many Jewish people, inside and outside Israel, on both sides of the argument. However, I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend that the right of the Palestinian people to a secure home and to self-determination is as absolute as that of the inhabitants of Israel.

Antarctica

Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Governments of France and Australia on the future of Antarctica.

Mr. Sainsbury: There have been no formal discussions with the French or Australians at governmental level. The French ambassador and Australian high commissioner called on me on 3 May to present their joint proposals for environmental protection in Antarctica, for consideration at the special Antarctic treaty consultative meeting in Santiago in November.

Dr. Howells: Does the Minister agree that many people in Britain and elsewhere are deeply suspicious of


Governments such as ours who talk green, but who, in their next breath, promote multinational corporations which spill their oil across the seas and spoil wildernesses such as those of north America, Africa and Asia? Does he understand that the world needs an imaginative gesture, and that a continental wildlife park in Antarctica would be the right one?

Mr. Sainbury: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman knows that he is talking nonsense. Negotiations on the minerals convention began in 1982 and were concluded in 1988 by consensus of 33 countries, 19 of which—the majority—signed the convention. That convention will give unparalleled protection from mineral prospecting in the Antarctic; without it there would be no legally binding or enforceable protection for the Antarctic environment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome its coming into force at an early date.

Romania

Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's reaction to the outcome of the Romanian elections held on 20 May.

Mr. Waldegrave: The elections were an important step towards democracy. However, much remains to be done if Romania is to develop into a truly free society.

Mr. Sumberg: All of us welcome the steps that Romania is taking towards democracy, but will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the Romanian Government that membership of the democratic family depends on there being truly free elections and a system of justice which ensures that people who are guilty of crimes under the former regime are called to account?

Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with my hon. Friend on both points. We shall be watching what constitution the new constituent assembly in Romania—which is effectively what it is—now brings forward. We shall want to look at the gamut of protection of the rights of the individual, and so on.

Middle East

Ms. Short: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet a representative of the Government of Israel to discuss the middle east peace process.

Mr. Waldegrave: We regularly discuss with the Israelis the urgent need for peace in the middle east. They are well aware of our view that direct negotiation between Israel and representative Palestinians is an essential first step.

Ms. Short: Does the Minister agree that the formation of that extreme Government in Israel is deeply worrying—it is even supported by a party which calls for the expulsion of the Palestinians from the west bank and Gaza—that we need urgent action, and that the answer is for the United States to pressurise the Israeli Government into negotiations? Through the European Community, we could have a big new high-profile initiative to put pressure on America, which in turn could bring Israel to the negotiating table. Those matters are now very urgent.

Mr. Waldegrave: I share the hon. Lady's sense of urgency. Let us see what the new Government in Israel propose. Let us hope that they surprise us. Some of their supporters, as the hon. Lady says, were hard line in their previous statements, but let us see what they propose. What is needed is the dialogue to which I referred, and every day that passes makes that dialogue more urgently required.

Staircase Refurbishment, Foreign Office

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the cost of refurbishing staircases in the Foreign Office during the past 12 months.

Mr. Sainsbury: Work on refurbishing the two important staircases in this grade I listed building has extended over the past 24 months at a total cost of £361,000.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that The Times stated that that work was costing £30 million which, translated into medieval terms, is vastly more than Michelangelo got for painting the Sistine chapel? If what my hon. Friend says is correct, The Times should be asked to insert a correction, but if The Times is correct, most taxpayers will be appalled at that sort of indulgence by the Foreign Office on a building which hon. Members hardly ever see, much less the taxpayer.

Mr. Sainsbury: I assure my hon. Friend that the figure that I have given is the correct one. A much larger scheme of refurbishment is being undertaken in what are known as the Old Public Offices. It is the first major scheme of refurbishment since they were built some 130 years ago, it is much needed and it will bring many worthwhile benefits.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 29 JUNE

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. John Bowis
Mr. Tony Banks
Mr. Gerald Bowden.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILLS PRESENTED

BAN OF IMPORTS (CHILD LABOUR)

Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, supported by Mr. Allen Adams, Mr. Jimmy Wray, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. John Hughes, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. George Galloway, Mr. Keith Vaz and Mr. Mike Watson, presented a Bill to prohibit the sale of imported goods, the manufacture of which has involved child labour; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 July and to be printed. [Bill 162.]

Statutory Instruments, &amp;c

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the Questions on the four motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the Education (Recognised Awards) (Amendment) Order 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 1085) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.


That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Netherlands) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Italy) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.

That the farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1990 S.I., 1990, No. 1126) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Beaches and Coastline (Regulation)

Mr. John McFall: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate and control beaches and coastline; and for other purposes.
I am presenting the Bill today because of my experience
in my constituency, which has extensive beaches and coastline, where during April a voluntary organisation, made up of 500 volunteerss, collected 3,000 plastic bags and burned 20 tonnes of timber. In a month when the European Commission has confirmed that it is beginning legal action against the United Kingdom Government in the European Court of Justice because of dozens of polluted beaches which have failed the EC minimum standards, it is salutary to remember that an EC directive on pollution was introduced in 1975—15 long years ago. Despite that intervening period, we now find that 109 beaches in the United Kingdom fail the sewage test, and that other hazards have been highlighted.
The Bill will address the environmental concerns—and who is not an environmentalist now after witnessing the Prime Minister's indecent haste to become green? I remind hon. Members that in 1982, at the height of the Falklands crisis, the Prime Minister said:
When you've spent half your political life dealing with humdrum issues like the environment, it is exciting to have a real crisis on your hands.
We have a crisis every day on our hands. One therefore has
to doubt the Prime Minister's political integrity while she demonstrates touching faith in her Secretary of State for the Environment who has been hauled before the European Court of Justice.
My Bill seeks to amend the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 (Commencement) (No. 1) Order 1988 in order to tighten up the penalties for dumping at sea. The Marine Conservation Society claims that dumping at sea is the main source of marine litter and that an estimated 500,000 plastic containers are dumped daily from merchant ships alone. It is also estimated that more than 100,000 marine mammals and 2 million sea birds are killed each year, due to eating or becoming entangled in marine debris.
My Bill would also institute more and better testing than the United Kingdom now undertakes under the EC directive. There are no standard virus tests. In the absence of such tests, my Bill would provide for testing for salmonella and the various enteroviruses, since these are the most serious risks to people's health that scientists hve demonstrated. The Government are not testing for these viruses on most beaches. Where tests have been carried out, the Government have not included the results for the percentage of beaches that have passed the test.
My Bill would also introduce, for sewage disposal, secondary biological-chemical treatment for all towns with a population of more than 5,000. According to the "Nature- programme in March 1989, the Prime Minister said:
No raw sewage is discharged round Britain's coasts.

I, like many other hon. Members, could take the Prime Minister to my constituency and show her that that statement is not true.
There are many questions that one has to ask. Why, as we approach the 21st century, are 300 million gallons of sewage—much of it completely untreated—entering the seas around Britain? The debris is sickening to environmentalists. Dr. Mark Woombs, of the Knotts End study centre near Morecambe, where children come to learn about the environment, said in the Observer magazine of a few weeks ago:
Children come here to learn the difference between biodegradable and non-biodegradable matter. Instead, every time one of them comes back with a small green object which they think is a rare plant species. Unfortunately, I have to tell them what it is—a decomposed turd.
My Bill would make it mandatory for signposts to be placed on all designated beaches detailing whether it had passed or failed the bathing water quality standards in the past year. The Bill would also provide for carrying out a proper national survey of the health effects of bathing in contaminated waters. It would also contain a provision for the allocation of £2·5 billion for a capital investment programme to bring Scotland's water and sewerage standards up to those contained in the EC directive. We are keen to ensure that the Scottish water industry receives equality of treatment with that in England and Wales, which received a Government cash injection of £1·02 billion and was allowed to write off £4·5 billion in the run-up to privatisation. It is important that Scotland should be treated in the same way.
I am aware that expense is always uppermost in the Government's mind, but the criterion should be quality, not cost. If, in their privatisation of British Gas, the Government could spend £350 million on telling the British public all about Sid, they can spend a fraction of that sum on telling people that bathing in contaminated water is no good whatsoever for their health. Just like he Government's statements, the odd green pellets that people pick up on the beach are not what they seem at first sight. That is why the need for the Bill is paramount, and that is why I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John McFall, Mr. Alun Michael, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr. George Foulkes, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Dr. Kim Howells, Mr. Brian Wilson, Mr. Thomas Graham, Mr. Paul Flynn and Mrs. Alice Mahon.

BEACHES AND COASTLINE (REGULATION)

Mr. John McFall accordingly presented a Bill to regulate and control beaches and coastline; and for other purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 161.]

Orders of the Day — British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 12

GOVERNOR'S ANNUAL REPORT

'The Governor of Hong Kong should submit to the Secretary of State an annual report on the discharge by the Governor of his functions under this Act.'.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 1—Governor's Annual Report—
'The Governor shall submit an annual report to the Secretary of State on the operation of any scheme made under this Act.'

Mr. Lloyd: The Government tabled new clause 12 having seen and approved the intention behind the Opposition's new clause 1. In Committee, we had a useful discussion about how Parliament could keep an eye on the way in which the selection procedures flowing from the Bill and the Orders in Council to follow were progressing under the direction and management of the Governor. In Committee, I said that periodical reports from the Governor to the Home Secretary that would be available to Parliament would be useful.
Both new clauses put that suggestion into legislative form. I hope that Opposition Members will not press their proposal but will support the Government's new clause in preference because it is slightly broader. For instance, new clause 1 would probably not cover registration for wives and spouses. New clause 12 would, by contrast, cover every aspect of the Governor's functions under the legislation. I believe that that extra reach would be welcomed by the House.
I am grateful to Opposition Members for their initiative in taking me at my word in Committee and tabling new clause 1, thus providing the Government with an incentive to table new clause 12. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Alistair Darling: I am grateful to the Minister for tabling new clause 12. As he said, it is probably an improvement on new clause 1 in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself. It would be useful for the House to be kept informed as to how any scheme introduced by the Bill operates and for the Governor to report formally, as well as informally and through other channels, on how the situation in Hong Kong is progressing.
As the Minister said, new clause 12 covers slightly more points than were raised in Committee. It is not just the operation of the points scheme that I want the Governor to consider. It may assist the House if I outline two or three considerations that I believe the Governor should take into account.
The Bill is about the stability of Hong Kong and how the United Kingdom should best behave and react to the

changing circumstances there. Individuals and groups of people in Hong Kong are not catered for under the Bill, and we should become more concerned about them as we move towards 1997. The question of spouses will probably be more conveniently dealt with under a later group of amendments, but there are other aspects that the Governor could usefully consider.
The Minister himself mentioned the operation of the points system. The Committee dealt with it at some length, and it is not my intention to cover that ground again, though other right hon. and hon. Members may want to do so. Suffice it to say that we have some reservations about the operation of the points system. In particular, we believe that it will cater for only a narrow section of the people living in Hong Kong—those who have other choices before them. People who are left behind or who will not qualify under the points system will feel that the Bill does nothing to reassure them.
I should like the Governor's annual report to include an indication of how the system is working in respect not only of its application but of its effect on the population of Hong Kong as a whole.
I should be particularly interested to know whether the jobs left vacant by people leaving Hong Kong are filled by others. A newspaper report two weeks ago indicated that about 40 people applied for each vacancy in the Administration. If that is so, we should be aware of it, so that we can keep our eye on the general position in Hong Kong.
3.45 pm
There are two or three other categories of people not dealt with in the Bill but upon which we touched in Committee. The first group is those with no effective nationality. You, Mr. Speaker, were not able to select our new clause that dealt with this point, and, although it is not my purpose to raise the matter now by another means, I think that I can legitimately touch on the point in this debate, because we are discussing matters that the Governor should take into account when preparing his report.
In Committee, we raised the plight of people who will have no effective nationality after 1997. They are mainly of Indian descent. I know that the Confederation of Indian Organisations has been in touch with the Minister, and that in response to that meeting he wrote to the confederation as follows:
British nationals have the specific parliamentary assurance given on a number of occasions that if, against all expectation, any solely British national with no claim to Chinese nationality came under severe pressure to leave Hong Kong, the Goverment of the day would be expected to consider with considerable and particular sympathy their case for admission to the United Kingdom. We stand by that assurance.
For the avoidance of doubt, I gave an assurance on behalf of the Labour party in Committee that in the event of our being the Goverment at the time we would give these people the same consideration, unless their position had been dealt with elsewhere.
I mention those people because it is all very well to offer them sympathy and assurances, but that may not be of immediate help to them. The Opposition remain concerned that these people, whom the Chinese do not regard as Chinese for obvious reasons, may find


themselves in a difficult position, especially if there is any upheaval or internal division in Hong Kong at or about the time that it passes to Chinese control.
Indeed, these people are excluded from holding high office under the terms of the agreement with China. I should he grateful if the Minister would give an assurance that the Governor will report on their plight, because if they are in difficulty Parliament should be aware of that, earlier rather than later, so that we can, if necessary, do something about it.
I need hardly remind the House that it is now about 20 years since the east African Asian British passport holders were given assurances following upheavals in east Africa, yet many of them are still waiting to come to this country under the terms of the assurances given by successive Governments. Many of them live in Hong Kong, and this loose end in British immigration law is unsatisfactory; people are given assurances and told they will be dealt with under an informal or even a formal system but outwith the mainstream immigration regime, yet they find themselves left in the unsatisfactory state of having only travel documents. That is what British overseas citizenship is: it does not give the right of abode anywhere other than in Hong Kong. If these people find themselves in difficulty in Hong Kong, we have an obligation to them.
The Government have said that an assurance has been given to these people, but I submit that it is not much of an assurance. The Select Committee that went to Hong Kong last year specifically raised this problem and recommended that the Government deal with it.
I mentioned two other categories with whom the Governor should deal. First, the House should be kept informed of the way in which section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981 works. As the Committee heard, 180,000 people are in Crown service in Hong Kong. There have been 540 applications for citizenship under this section of the Act, of which only nine have been granted because only nine qualified under the terms of that subsection.
The Minister gave an assurance in Committee that section 4(5) would work alongside this measure, and I think that the Governor should report each year on the operation of the subsection and on whether any amendments to it need to be made. This is especially important, since Crown servants are to be relied on to keep Hong Kong going and sometimes put themselves in difficult positions because of that, so we should not turn our backs on them.
Finally, the Governor must deal with the issue of children. In Committee we did not manage to persuade the Government that children who are wholly dependent on parents but who are not minors should in some circumstances be granted citizenship so that they will not be left behind. I have in mind, for example, a family with three children, two aged 14 and 12 and one perhaps aged 19. If the 19-year-old were dependent on his or her mother or father—perhaps he was handicapped, or just living in the family unit, as children do in all parts of the world—it would be manifestly unfair if that family had to come to this country and leave one child behind. If the object of the Bill is to provide assurances and to anchor people in Hong Kong, it seems an odd way of anchoring people if one child must be left behind.
I said that family unity and the way in which minor children are referred to in the immigration rules and regulations needs consideration, because the United

Kingdom is no longer in harmony even with EC regulations, where the age is 21 and not 18. That must be considered specifically with Hong Kong in mind, although clearly it might have other repercussions.
We are told that Hong Kong is a special case, and I accept that, but the Bill remains deficient in many respects. Many people living in Hong Kong have a need to be looked after rather than a pure economic need, or are in a position where it would be economically more advantageous to keep them in Hong Kong. I am concerned that I am continuing to hear reports that many of the people who will qualify under the Bill will also qualify to go to Canada, Australia and other countries. We are forgetting, or leaving behind, those who may find themselves in difficulty as we approach 1997.
Lest there be any misunderstanding, I reiterate that it remains the hope and wish of every hon. Member that conditions in China and Hong Kong will continue to improve, that the problems of 12 months ago will not recur and that the same transformation will take place on that side of the world as has taken place in Europe, particularly eastern Europe, over the past few years. We must guard against the possibility of things not going as we wish.
If new clause 1 is not accepted, I hope that the Governor will deal with those points, in recognition of the fact that there are genuine concerns among those who care not only about Hong Kong but about how the scheme will work, particularly in relation to those people whom it will not directly affect.

Mr. John Butcher: I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). The House hopes that circumstances will change and will evolve on mainland China, rendering the fallback positions enshrined in the Bill either irrelevant or unnecessary.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak to the new clause, which deals with the functions and duties of the Governor. It is an improvement to a certain extent, because it at least improves the channels of accountability to the House. None the less, I have grave misgivings about its workings and the criteria that the Governor will be asked to bear in mind. It is difficult to set yardsticks by which we measure our definition of the great and good residents of Hong Kong. Many hon. Members find that exercise morally excruciating and difficult to reach a firm view about, because we are being asked to do something that has proved virtually impossible in previous immigration laws and Acts of citizenship, not only in Britain but in other parts of the world.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does not it also introduce a wholly new idea and basis for immigration? It does not say that people may come to Britain because of their attachment to it, their desire to serve it or to throw in their lot with its people; it allows them to come here precisely because they are, or may be, useful to Hong Kong.

Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, but there is a piece of hard data that goes a long way towards answering his question. We see from the criteria that 50 points out of a total of 800 are to be awarded for "British links". Presumably that is the measurement by the Government and the Governor of the strength of loyalty that these citizens may have to the United Kingdom. I


should have thought that, with a measure of 50 points out of 800, we can already see the pitfalls that lie in wait for anyone who tries to establish measures by which these people will be seen as worthy citizens of the United Kingdom should things go wrong in the colony.
The concept of loyalty is an equally difficult concept to enshrine in these criteria and one that I have never seen in any legislation. I am talking about the broader loyalties of a Foreign Secretary in conjunction with the Governor to those who may be under threat in the colony of Hong Kong if things go wrong and about a couple of loyalties which will not enter into the Governor's consciousness but which Conservative Members must maintain—loyalty to our party's manifesto and supporters, and loyalty to the nation. As our party has said many times, we want good community and intra-community relationships to exist and the surety that there will be an end to primary immigration.
We in this country have a moral obligation to those who will be under threat if the mainland Chinese do not honour the traditions and liberties of Hong Kong residents. Amendment No. 42, which may be discussed later in greater detail, expresses a genuine intention to define those people who may be at risk. It refers to people being
"(a) in the opinion of the Governor, likely to be in danger of reprisals for services rendered to the Crown before 30th June 1997,
(b) liable to become stateless after the transfer of sovereinty over Hong Kong on 30th June 1997."
Estimates have been made of the number of people in the so-called "sensitive" categories, including one estimate of 6,300 people. I do not know of any of my hon. Friends who do not recognise the Government's moral responsi-bility to those people. We may be talking about people who have served in the intelligence service or have been members of certain branches of the police force; but what about the people from more mundane professions who may be in a sensitive position if the mainland Chinese so deem it?
Is a schoolteacher any less of a good citizen or any less loyal to his fellow citizens in Hong Kong or to his links with the United Kingdom than a wealthy employment and wealth creator in Hong Kong? Who is more worthy? How many times have we had debates in the House about the relative merits of certain categories in society? Do we not talk many times about the extent to which we could not create wealth in this country and the extent to which there would not be rich entrepreneurs and job providers if there were no decent trainers and educators to provide the human feedstock and the skills required to generate a dynamic economy?

Mr. Tony Marlow: My hon. Friend wisely, caringly and sympathetically outlined the relative problem that schoolteachers may face. Perhaps I may illustrate his point. Schoolteachers in Hong Kong probably now teach versions and elements of British history. We have a changing regime in China; it is to be hoped that it will become more benign, but it may remain much as it is at the moment. If that happens, the teaching of British history in schools in Hong Kong may be regarded by the Chinese authorities as subversive. Although a teacher who has been teaching history under the existing regime may not be as wealthy or potentially as

useful in the United Kingdom as some other citizens, he or she may be at a greater risk than them after 1997 if the Chinese Government develops as we hope they will not but as they could in adverse circumstances.

4 pm

Mr. Speaker: Before the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) answers that intervention, I should point out that it seems to go very wide of the new clause. The hon. Gentleman must not raise points that may have been raised on Second Reading or allude, as he did a moment ago, to amendments that are to be called later.

Mr. Butcher: I am grateful to you for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I should reassure you and my hon. Friends that I have undertaken not to detain the House for more than 10 minutes, so it would not be in my interests to stray too far from the new clause.
Having noted the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), I return to the criteria. A major problem lies at the heart of those criteria, which create a set of excruciatingly difficult dilemmas for the Governor, no matter how often he reports to the House through the Foreign Secretary. He is being asked to create lifeboats for key people in Hong Kong, but Hong Kong is a vessel full of people. What signal will the Governor be giving to the generality of the people of Hong Kong if he says, "Lifeboats are available only for 50,000 citizens"? How is that supposed to improve the morale of the ship's complement? That is the Governor's difficulty, and that is why I shall have grave difficulty in supporting the Government in the Lobby tonight.
The criteria are muddled. They illustrate the central moral dilemma that we have unnecessarily imposed upon ourselves, having already constructed criteria in the British Nationality Act 1981. If the proposals remain unchanged, in two or three years' time my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will have to live with some of the idiocies that the criteria entail, and although the controversy about the Bill may not be great this afternoon, the Bill will provide a framework in which we may face immense problems in three or four years' time. At that point, it will be too late for the House to reconsider its moral responsibilities, its loyalties or the practicalities of the Bill. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is genuine in his intentions, and I hope that, even at this late stage, he will consider the dilemma with which he will be confronting his successors as we move towards 1997.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: As long as it remains the responsibility of the Government to look after all the people of Hong Kong, it will be possible for Britain to take a decision about their future that may benefit them, without regard to the present provisions. It will be possible for the Government to reverse their decision and for legislative provision to be made to back up any change of course that may be necessary between now and 1997.
We must address ourselves to the limited scope of the scheme and to its adequacy and consider whether the Governor's annual report on his functions, as provided in the new clause, would make a significant contribution. In


my view, it is an acceptable new clause, but it does not go very far because it confines the Governor to reporting on his functions under the Bill.
The Governor's functions, according to the Bill, are no doubt capable of causing great trouble in respect of all those people who will be disappointed by the fact that they are excluded from the scheme for which the Governor and the Government will be responsible. None the less, those people are concerned about their future. If the Governor's report is intended simply to record how the scheme has operated, it will not tell us a great deal about Hong Kong or its political needs. It will certainly not greatly serve to underpin the Governor's difficult position in that country.
The new clause does not deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) about the difficult position of people who may well prove to be stateless following 1997. Those people may not enjoy the security of a right of abode in this country or the right to a proper passport entitling them to a right of abode anywhere or a right to be recognised as citizens of the People's Republic of China. They are not specifically provided for in the Bill. The Governor will have no duty to report on that predicament.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman has referred to stateless people in Hong Kong. Will he be kind enough to give us his impression of how many such people there are in Hong Kong, how they got to Hong Kong in the first place, and to what extent, given the different categories of people who are stateless in Hong Kong, the British Government and the British people have any responsibility for them?

Mr. Maclennan: Many are recent immigrants and some arrived in Hong Kong a long time ago. Many have come from the Indian sub-continent and there are many thousands of them. Representations have been made to many Members of this House about their predicament. They are not catered for specifically and the Government have not made any provision that will reassure them. That is a serious matter, and it is shown by the fact that the People's Republic of China, in its treaty arrangement with this Government, has not undertaken to recognise those people even as citizens of the People's Republic. The anxieties of that section of the community, for whom we have responsibility, are real and legitimate.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman is implying that some of the stateless persons in Hong Kong are possibly illegal immigrants. If that is the case, to what extent do we have responsibility for them?

Mr. Maclennan: If I had felt that that was the case, I would not have implied it; I would have said it. Those people are in Hong Kong and they are legally resident there. However, they do not enjoy a proper prospect of citizenship following 1997. It is frankly deplorable that a British Government, at the end of empire, should walk out on those people. I am addressing the matter in the context of the requirement of a report from the Governor about his functions. I stress that that report will be narrow and will not enable us to consider what else should and must be done.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) must be aware that we are not debating a fallback position. The provision will come into operation immediately. It does not depend on a change of

circumstances in Peking or anywhere else. It is being brought forward now to deal with the present concern of the people of Hong Kong that Hong Kong's economy will be disrupted and the prospects of prosperity undermined if there is an exodus of people in sensitive positions in industry and commerce. Those people want the scheme on which the Government will be required to report to be drawn up quickly. They do not want to wait to see what is coming down the pike or to see whether the Peking Government become like Governments in eastern Europe. They want an assurance now. That is what the Governor will be reporting on.
This proposal is not a great concession. It is a narrow point. Although it is not something that I would dream of opposing, we must regard it for what it is—a pretty thin concession.

Mr. Robert Adley: I welcome the new clause. Without any offence to my right hon. and hon. Friends, I have no fear about the effect of any of the measures in the Bill on British immigration policy. That is no part of my argument, and even though I have had representations from my constituents, I hope that I can take as honourable a view as I took at the time of the issue of the Ugandan Asians.
We are dealing with the annual report of the Governor and the way in which he will discharge his functions when the Bill becomes an Act. Therefore, we must recognise that the Bill is a response by her Majesty's Government to events in Peking last year as they were perceived in Hong Kong to be likely to affect the welfare of the territory in future. People in Hong Kong would have been less than human had they not been undoubtedly alarmed and concerned about what was going on in the north and the likely implications for their life style in future.
Although my hon. Friend the Minister is a Home Office Minister, I hope that he will accept that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office cannot be totally divorced from either the contents of this legislation or the Governor's report. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that relations between Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China—and, equally important, relations between her Majesty's Government and the People's Republic of China—are an essential fact of life and must be an essential component of the Governor's report to the House, as proposed in the new clause.
The report and the legislation flow directly from the 1984 joint agreement. That is the basis of legislation determining the relations of the future status of Hong Kong. Under that agreement, the British and Chinese Governments are committed to maintaining the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. My concern about the legislation has always been that, rather than maintaining stability, it may do just the reverse.
There will undoubtedly be further changes in China between now and 1997. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) will allow me to make two points that he has made succinctly and forcefully many times, and which are of fundamental importance to the way in which we look to the future of Hong Kong.
First, there never has been any form of democratic regime in China. There probably in our lifetimes—

Mr. Robin Corbett: Nor in Hong Kong, for that matter.

Mr. Adley: I shall refer to that point in a moment.
There has never been any form of democratic regime in China, and the welfare, stability and prosperity of Hong Kong have never depended upon there being any form of democratic regime in China. However bestial one may perceive Chinese Governments to have been from time to time—it is quite arguable whether the present Government are more or less bestial than their predecessors—it is a fact of life that has always governed relations between Britain and China and between Hong Kong and China.
Secondly, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) has said from a sedentary position, there has never been any form of democracy in Hong Kong. Many of the unelected people—sometimes rudely known as "fat cats"—who purport to speak for the 5 million or 6 million people of Hong Kong probably have rather less knowledge of how the hawker in the back streets of Hong Kong thinks or what his concerns are than we may sometimes be led to believe.
On the Governor's report, we must recognise that the commitment of both Governments to prosperity and stability relate not only to how we and the people of Hong Kong regard the influence of this agreement on their lives, but how the people of China—the Government of China, in particular—regard the effect of this legislation on their commitment to the maintainance of prosperity and stability.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South will agree that some people who recognise the essential truth may have doubts about the following proposition. My right hon. Friend would agree that the welfare of the people of Hong Kong has always been best served when there have been good relations between the British and Chinese Governments. There has never been advantage to the welfare of the people of Hong Kong when Britain and China have been at loggerheads.
If one accepts that proposition, I am bound to say that the fact that the Bill was produced without any consultation between the British and Chinese Governments, or without the Chinese Government even being informed of Her Majesty's Government's intention to introduce the legislation, is not the best way to ensure the maintenance of good and stable relations between the two countries on which, at the moment and for the foreseeable future, the welfare of the people of Hong Kong depends.
I am worried that the issuance of passports under the Bill will deprive many Hong Kong citizens of their rights as Chinese citizens. I hope that I am not out of order if, in the light of the wording of the new clause, I remind the House of certain aspects of the two memoranda relating to passports and status which were attached to the 1984 agreement. I have the impression that not every hon. Member is entirely familiar with them.
4.15 pm
The first was submitted by the British Government and includes the following proposition:
All persons who on 30 June 1997 are, by virtue of a connection with Hong Kong, British Dependent Territories Citizens (BDTCs) under the law in force in the United Kingdom will cease to be BDTCs with effect from 1 July 1997, but will be eligible to retain an appropriate status which, without conferring the right of abode in the United Kingdom, will entitle them to continue to use passports issued by the Government of the United Kingdom.

The Chinese Government's brief response includes the following:
Under the Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China, all Hong Kong Chinese compatriots, whether they are holders of the 'British Dependent Territories Citizens' Passport' or not, are Chinese nationals.
Taking account of the historical background of Hong Kong and its realities, the competent authorities of the Government of the People's Republic of China will, with effect from 1 July 1997, permit Chinese nationals in Hong Kong who were previously called 'British Dependent Territories Citizens' to use travel documents issued by the Government of the United Kingdom for the purpose of travelling to other states and regions.
As both the British and Chinese Governments signed and accepted those memoranda, it is inconceivable that a British or Chinese Government could have introduced this legislation without recognising that they influence at least the spirit and, quite possibly, even the letter of the 1984 agreement. What has always worried me about the legislation and the way in which it has been handled is that, in the eyes of the Chinese Government, the British Government appear deliberately to have abused both the spirit and the letter of the 1984 agreement. That does not serve the people of Hong Kong well.

Mr. Marlow: The Government have said that their objective in the Bill is to keep people, particularly influential and important people, in Hong Kong. Many people who oppose the Bill fear that it will have the opposite effect. So far, the Chinese authorities have made straightforward statements, but if they make it clear that if any Hong Kong Chinese who accepts British citizenship under the provisions of the Bill will not be allowed to stay in Hong Kong or China after 1997, it will drive people out of Hong Kong.
Is it appropriate or right to allow a Governor in his report to react to circumstances in China which would lead him to believe that the provisions already in the Bill would cause people to leave Hong Kong, having the completely contrary effect to the Government's intention? Should he include that in his report and, if so, should Parliament be able to do something about it?

Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend makes a sound point. It is likely that the Chinese Government would deduce that people who take up their right to passports are, in effect, giving up their right to Chinese nationality, and therefore face the choice of either remaining in Hong Kong stateless or coming to the United Kingdom. Nobody is likely to want to take the chance of remaining in a country stateless. There is a real risk that the Bill will encourage people to leave Hong Kong.
My anxieties have nothing to do with my views on British immigration policy. I am worried about the effect of such an event on Hong Kong. There have always been many people leaving Hong Kong regularly for elsewhere in the world.

Mr. James Hill: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Adley: I will answer my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) first, and then I shall give way.
There has always been a regular outflow of people. Clearly, it is bound to fluctuate from time to time, but inevitably the constitutional changes that will take place in 1997 will create a great deal of uncertainty. In his annual report the Governor should address the likelihood that,


when the Bill becomes an Act, instead of a regular flow of people from Hong Kong, there will be a risk of creating a flood. I d o not use that word to be abusive or to imply that there will be a flood of people to Britain. However, there could be a flood or haemorrhage of people from Hong Kong all at one go.
If one is trying to maintain the stability of a territory, in what worse way could one go about it than introducing legislation that risks creating a sudden haemorrhage of large numbers of people at one time?

Mr. Hill: Does my hon. Friend agree that the last thing that the Chinese Government want—my hon. Friend is far closer to the Chinese Government than I could ever be—is to get rid of the people who are making the enterprise culture in Hong Kong work? It is pretty obvious to me that the Chinese Government are looking forward to a wonderful community that will produce vast amounts of money. I do not accept the argument that the more British passports we issue, the more people will be frightened away by a Chinese Government—quite the reverse. The Chinese Government will know that we have hand-picked those people as part of the enterprise culture, and they will do everything in their power to retain them. After all, if Hong Kong is not a thriving port, it is nothing but a little barren rock.

Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend is probably closer to the authorities in Taiwan than I am ever likely to be, but that need not preclude our agreeing from time to time on certain matters.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Adley: In a moment. My hon. Friend must let me answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) first, because it is important.
With respect to some of the Ministers, not at the Home Office but at the Foreign Office, one of the problems is that they were not around when the joint agreement of 1984 was being negotiated, let alone the months and years leading up to it when everyone knew that negotiations had to take place and all sorts of silly phrases such as "leaseback" were in the air. My hon. Friend will remember it. It is probably not too indiscreet of me to say now that I wrote my book called "All change, Hong Kong" in 1983 and had copies scrutinised verbatim by both the Foreign Office and the Chinese Government. Things needed to be said at that time which neither Government felt able to say, and I was the fall guy who said them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Test is right: the spirit of the 1984 agreement is that, basically, Chinese pride was deeply wounded by our acquisition of Hong Kong, and the ambition of successive Chinese Governments, many of whom were far more vitriolic about Hong Kong than the Communist Government have been since 1949, was the return of sovereignty. As my hon. Friend said, they wanted sovereignty to be returned but Hong Kong to be left as it was.
The Chinese are not altruistic. That is the last thing that one could accuse them of being. They are self-interested, and they want to retain the wealth and the benefits that they receive from Hong Kong. Their desire and that of the British Government to maintain stability is enshrined in the wealth and benefits that come from Hong Kong. Of course, my hon. Friend is right: the last thing that the Chinese wanted to do, or want to do now, is to drive away

from Hong Kong the very people on whom its prosperity depends. My hon. Friend is perhaps implying that, by this legislation, we are likely to further the departure of people from Hong Kong rather than to still it. I believe that that is the point that my hon. Friend made, and it could well be true.

Mr. Budgen: I wish to take up with my hon. Friend a relevant point. Has not a feature of Hong Kong life since 1984 been the way in which a considerable number of people, without offence to the Chinese authorities, acquired alternative rights of abode in the traditional immigration reception countries of the United States of America, Canada and Australia? Is it not important that the Governor's annual report tells Parliament what is happening about that trend? Many of us fear that, instead of acquiring rights of abode in those countries which have traditionally always welcomed immigrants, people will turn their attention to emigrating to Britain.

Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend has a point. Given the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Test, I suppose that I should have declared my interest as the chairman of the British-Chinese parliamentary group. As a member of the Select Committee on Members' interests, I am not sure whether I should have done that earlier. However, I hope that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will not give me too hard a time as I continue my speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South-West (Mr. Budgen) has made a valid point. Recently in Hong Kong, discussing among other matters the one that he has just raised, I discovered that the lowest going price for a passport was $HK50,000 for a passport for the Dominican Republic. Perhaps, in the report that the Governor produces to Parliament, he should also produce an annual chart of the going rate for a passport for any given country. There is nothing particularly new about that.
One aspect to which my hon. Friend did not allude but which certainly concerns me—perhaps the Governor could turn his mind to it—is whether, under the Bill, we shall create a market for jobs with British passports. There is a market in just about everything else in Hong Kong, and I cannot see any reason why jobs that carry the likely right to a passport, under the Bill, will not have a price. Personally, I have never discovered anything in Hong Kong that does not have a price.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Chinese authorities would ever know the identities of those who could not manage to secure a right of abode in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Adley: I had not considered that, but it is an interesting question. I do not know, but I suppose that one would have to look into the procedures. The hon. Gentleman should address to the Minister the question whether all the applications will be handled in total secrecy and how that secrecy is to be maintained. The retention of such secrets in a place like Hong Kong may not be easy—

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Adley: I am more than happy to give way to my hon. Friend if other hon. Members do not think that I am taking up too much time.

Mr. Marlow: I believe that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was looking at and referring to me when he made his intervention. Whether or not the Chinese authorities come to know about those who will have the right of abode under the provisions of the Bill—and they probably will—what is more important than that—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is an assumption that the hon. Gentleman cannot make.

Mr. Marlow: Well, what is more important than that is that those people who do receive the right of abode will go through their lives with the assumption that the Chinese authorities will get to know that information?

Mr. Adley: That is a somewhat esoteric point, which I had not been going to cover and on which I have no information, because there can be no information. That is an additional concern, but I am anxious—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister to assure us on that point, because it is exceedingly important that we know? The Minister is sitting on the Treasury Bench and he should know.

Mr. Adley: I am not joining an attempt to filibuster the Bill. I do not like the Bill—[interruption] I do not wish to be unkind. The House voted to give the Bill its Second Reading and I gather that the mood of the House is to allow the Bill to pass, but I am anxious to put on record some of my thoughts and worries, which should concern other hon. Members, which, I am sure, bother Sir David Wilson and which I hope he will be minded to include in his report.
The last two or three points that have been made have related to the sort of place that Hong Kong is. It is a mercurial place, with one of the most irresponsible presses in the free world, for which sensation and rumour are the order of the day.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is not in his place. When he was last in Hong Kong, having read the South China Morning Post and other newspapers and believed what was in them, he thereupon made a statement about how many passports the French and West German and other Governments would offer the citizens of Hong Kong. I must advise him that it must be quite some time since any Minister from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office can have achieved such a swift response from friendly Governments, remonstrating at what a British Minister had said. Even the Canadian Government were constrained to object to the British Government about what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State had said.
Therefore, I hope that care will now be taken by Ministers and that they will recognise that, although we do not have to like or admire the Chinese, we must recognise the facts of life and that they are there and will assume sovereignty. Their good will and their interpretation of this legislation are of vital importance to the people of Hong Kong. Therefore, the British Government and the Chinese Government must stay in contact. They must talk to each other and keep each other informed of their thinking.
I have expressed in answer to an intervention my fear that the Bill will create a haemorrhage of people from Hong Kong, the very haemorrhage that the Bill is supposed to stem. I hope that I am wrong. In my view, those in Hong Kong who have clamoured for the Bill have

taken a major step, some wittingly and some unwittingly, to undermine relations between Britain and China over the 1984 agreement. If I may say so, they do not and have not served well those for whom they purport to speak and by whom they have never been elected.
I am extremely concerned about the Bill. I hope that everything that I have said turns out to be entirely wrong. I believe that, in itself, it is an undermining of the 1984 joint agreement, upon which Hong Kong's future undoubtedly ultimately depends.

Mr. Max Madden: First, I welcome the new clause. A number of hon. Members, including myself, urged on Second Reading that an annual report should be presented. I am grateful to the Home Office and to the Government generally for tabling and introducing the new clause. I agree with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) about its limited purpose and narrow intentions. Nevertheless, it provides an important peg and an opportunity for the House in the years to come, especially between now and 1997, to monitor political events and developments in Hong Kong.
I wish to dwell for a short while on the mechanics of the presentation of the report and the opportunities for the House to perform a monitoring role. The report will be presented to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. We have had an annual debate on Hong Kong over recent years and I assume that the report will be an important part of the papers available to us when we debate Hong Kong in the future.
If the annual report is to be presented to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, it seems that that will not provide the full parliamentary scrutiny that I would like. I suggest that the Government and all the parties represented in the House consider the possibility of setting up a joint committee of the Select Committees on Home Affairs and on Foreign Affairs, which would be charged with the responsibility for monitoring political, social and economic events in Hong Kong. That would enable the Select Committee machinery to produce reports for the information of the House, and would provide the important information that Members will require when they come annually to debate the report that will be presented by the Governor and other matters relating to the affairs of Hong Kong.
The Select Committee on Home Affairs will be able to make inquiries about the annual report, but I am concerned that there appears to be no machinery to enable either the Foreign Secretary or the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs to have a locus. The House must do everything in its power to build confidence and try to reinforce confidence in the minds of the people of Hong Kong, who remain extremely anxious about their position during the years before 1997, by creating new extra-governmental institutions that will provide powers and opportunities to hon. Members to express concerns and anxieties as we proceed to 1997. If my suggestions were adopted, we would have a regular and sustained opportunity to ring the alarm bells if hon. Members or Select Committees were alarmed about anything.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) has great knowledge and experience of Asia, especially China and Hong Kong, and I bow to that experience. I listened


intently to what he said, and agreed with much of it. However, I must emphasise what has not been emphasised in earlier debates, and certainly not today: the haemorrhage is already here. Every week 1,000 people are leaving Hong Kong, and recent events have done nothing to strengthen their confidence about their well-being and safety, and that of their families, up to and after 1997.

Mr. Adley: I do not know when the hon. Gentleman last checked the figures, but I did so six or eight weeks ago. In the 10 months after the events of June last year, there was a marginal decrease in the number of people leaving Hong Kong. I hear what he says, but if he checks the facts and figures he may find that the alarming totals of which he has spoken are not borne out in reality.

Mr. Madden: I was in Hong Kong in April, when we were given that figure of 1,000 people a week. I have just consulted my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—who was in Hong Kong a fortnight ago—and he has confirmed that that figure is about right. We must not quibble about 100 either way; we should agree that substantial emigration from Hong Kong is now taking place. The Bill is an attempt to stem that haemorrhage now and in the foreseeable future. It does not serve us well to dwell on the minutiae of the spirit of past agreements between China and Britain when we are dealing with events after 1997.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To some extent it is not real emigration. Many people are simply trying to establish a right of abode in other countries. Having established that right, they often return to Hong Kong to carry on their business activities. There is a name for those people in Hong Kong—astronauts. In the main, they go to Canada to establish a right of abode—while safeguarding their short-term private interests—and then return to pursue their commercial activities. Their loyalties often remain to the colony, where they want to stay in the long term.

Mr. Madden: My hon. Friend is right. Let me reassure the hon. Member for Christchurch and others that, even if passports giving the right of abode are issued under the legislation—I understand the matter is being dealt with urgently—the first passports are to be issued later this year; there is no guarantee, and there should be no fear in the minds of hon. Members, that all 50,000 plus their dependants will seek to come to the United Kingdom. In my opinion, and in that of many other people whom I have consulted, not all those entitled to right of abode would wish to exercise that right. They would go to Canada, America, Australia and elsewhere, where they would be admitted.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman said that there was great urgency over the issue of the passports. What is the great urgency?

Mr. Madden: The great urgency stems from the men and women in Hong Kong who still have vivid memories about what happened in mainland China last year and vivid recollections of what has been happening in China during the past 12 months, and they marked that in their tens of thousands in Hong Kong a few days ago. Their anxieties are about whether they will be able to live in peace and security in Hong Kong after 1997 when the sovereignty of Hong Kong is handed to China.
To pick up the point made by my my hon. Friend the Member for Workington, many of the people who are now seeking to leave Hong Kong are going abroad to obtain the right of settlement and of abode. The only way in which they can qualify for that is to leave Hong Kong to settle temporarily in one of a number of countries to obtain nationality and a right of abode which they will wish to exercise only if life in Hong Kong becomes intolerable after 1997.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman may be using the word "urgency" in an odd sense. He means that the people of Hong Kong are extremely anxious, not that the problem is urgent. As he rightly says, the problem will not arise until 1997, and in the meantime the people of Hong Kong have found another method of dealing with it—establishing a right of abode in other countries. Therefore, the problems cannot be urgent in the sense that some great disaster will befall those people if passports are not issued this year, next year or the year after. In fact, they do not need them until 1997.

Mr. Madden: The right hon. Gentleman is either being particularly obtuse or is seeking to continue his campaign which fizzled out on the night of the Second Reading debate when the votes were counted.
The urgency is to get under way the scheme that is enshrined in the Bill and to make the passports available to stop the haemorrhage that is now under way. That is why I say that the matter is urgent. That is the view that I expressed on Second Reading to explain my unwillingness to oppose the Bill even though I recognise its fundamental defects. I abstained on Second Reading and I shall be supporting various amendments tonight, but I will not oppose the Bill on Third Reading.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Adley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Madden: If I am to fulfil my promise not to detain the House for any length of time I must conclude by welcoming the new clause. I hope that it will be carried. If the Minister intends to reply to the debate, I hope that he will at least say that he is willing to consider my suggestions about the procedures of the House strengthening and reinforcing the confidence that lies at the heart of the Bill and in the minds of the men and women of Hong Kong and perhaps to have further discussion about how they may be fulfilled.

Mr. Tebbit: Before you, Madam Deputy Speaker, came to the Chair, Mr. Speaker was being extraordinarily kind in allowing the debate to run quite wide, I think on the basis that almost anything that might be raised at this stage might go into the Governor's report if such a report were to be made. However, I do not want to take undue advantage of that and at this stage I have only two points to make about the new clause.
I preface my remarks by saying that since the House gave the Bill its Second Reading on the night when 80 members of the governing party either voted against the Bill or deliberately refused to support it, events have moved on a little, particularly in one respect. During that debate—I do not know to what extent it influenced any of my right hon. and hon. Friends—we were told by Ministers that the Chinese Government were not upset by


the measure and were quite content. The very next day a spokesman for the Chinese Government made it plain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) said, that the Chinese Government are bitterly opposed to it and regard it as a breach of the accord which was reached between the two Governments, and so it clearly is.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: indicated dissent.

Mr. Tebbit: It is no good my hon. Friend shaking his head. The Chinese Government, who are at least as likely to have it right as this Government, regard the measure as a breach of the accord. There is no doubt in my mind that that is so. Certainly it was completely wrong for Ministers to tell the House that the Chinese Government did not regard it as a breach. After all, the only people who can say whether the Chinese Government do or do not regard it as a breach are the Chinese Government themselves, and they made their position plain.

Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend the Minister shakes his head. I think that I can confirm to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) that the Chinese Government consider the measure to be a breach of the agreement, in the spirit and possibly in the letter, and that was why I read out in detail the two memoranda.
Will my right hon Friend comment on a point on which the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) would not give way? There is one point that we should put on the record, and it should also be part of the Governor's report, because he is responsible, as her Majesty's Government's representative in Hong Kong, for maintaining that stability.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the thousands of people in Hong Kong who were demonstrating. That is their right. But under the 1984 agreement there is a vital clause of desperate importance to the people of Hong Kong, and that is that, between 1990 and 1997, the Chinese Government will not interfere in the day-to-day running of Hong Kong and meddle in its internal politics. Equally, there is a commitment that the people of Hong Kong will not meddle in the politics of China. The temptation for the latter to do so is immense, but the danger of their doing so is equally immense. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that within the Governor's report we should have an indication that he is doing his best to make the people of Hong Kong aware of the risk that they run by constantly seeking to have their cake and eat it.

Mr. Tebbit: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. There is a real risk that, if the Government of China see what they believe to be constant breaches of the accord on what may be broadly called our side—the United Kingdom Government and the Government of Hong Kong—they will not feel unduly bound to stick to it themselves, and that would be a great pity. In the post-war era, every agreement that we have made with the Chinese Government has been kept. They may not have liked it at times and they may have made it plain that they did not like it, but they have stuck to their word. I regret that that Government should now see this Government, of which I

was a member when the accord was made—the Government whom I support—as being in breach of an accord that has been entered into solemnly.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I did not intend to intervene in my right hon. Friend's speech, but I must do so to make it clear that the Government are quite certain and know very well that this measure is not in breach of the joint agreement and accord, and a close inspection of the quotations read by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), which I hope will be reproduced in Hansard, will demonstrate that.

Mr. Tebbit: The Minister gives the Government's view. That is not my view. Perhaps more importantly, it is not the view of the Government of China, altough on Second Reading we were told that it was the view of the Government of China.

Mr. Madden: Before he moves on to other issues, why is the right hon. Gentleman seeking to apologise for that gang of geriatric murderers? Does he not recognise that many people in Hong Kong and elsewhere believe that the massacres which occurred in China last year were an excellent reason why Britain should have called an end to the accords over Hong Kong and 1997? Does he not realise that so many people were outraged by those events that they will dismiss his comments now as an obscene apology for geriatric murderers, who should not be given an inch, and that we should defend the interests of the men and women of Hong Kong in every way that we can?

Mr. Tebbit: I do not wish to provoke the hon. Gentleman into getting to the stage where he is asking my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to declare war on the Government of China, which would appear to be the logical extension of his remarks. I hope that he is keeping a tally of the number of people who have been shot dead in the present civil disturbances in the Soviet Union, as well as those who were shot dead in the disturbances in Tiananmen square a year or so ago.

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Tebbit: May I proceed for a moment? I do not wish to get into a debate with any hon. Member about the regime in China.

Mr. Madden: What about South Africa?

Mr. Tebbit: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a moment. I do not wish to get into a debate about the communist regime in China. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that I support any communist regimes anywhere in the world, he is looking at the wrong man and the wrong side of the House. However, I do not wish to be distracted further down that road. I want to follow up some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) concerning the impact of the proposed report by the governor and how we would deal with it in the House.
Such a report would be a nice thing to have. It will make a nice piece of work for someone to write an article about in The Times or even talk about on Sky television where perhaps it would get a larger audience—[HON.MEMBERS: "What about the Evening Standard?"] Yes, even the Evening Standard—there are many newspapers which are well worth reading.
How will the report be useful to us in the House? Let us suppose that the Governor's report contains material which we regard as a suitable subject not merely for debate but for a critical debate or even for a vote. What would we vote on? What would be the motion? What effect would it have?

Mr. Madden: We could take note.

Mr. Tebbit: Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman says we could have a take-note debate, but that is all that we would be able to do about it.
Although I welcome the new clause, we should not have any misunderstandings that it will make any difference whatsoever to anything that the Governor does in the name of this House, as we have no control over him if we enact the Bill in its present form.

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend consider a suggestion for how we might discover the attitude of the Chinese Government? It seems that there have been many suggestions in newsprint about what they believe, and whether the Bill constitutes a breach of the 1984 agreement. If my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is correct, it is easy for him. Our Government are in constant touch with the Government of China. He could produce a document from the Chinese Government, duly authorised by them explaining that they do not regard the right of entry, which will be granted by the Bill, as in any way a breach of the 1984 agreement. We need not correspond through newsprint. If what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary says is true, the Chinese Government will be open, and will say so in an official communication.

Mr. Tebbit: I do not want to be taken too far down that line, but it is quite clear that if the Government of China heard the accusations made by their own spokesman in the press saying that the Bill is in breach of the undertaking, naturally, as a Government having friendly relationships with our Government, they would have been the first to make a statement correcting it, and would have sent a telegram to the Foreign Office—I am not sure whether the Foreign Office communicates with the Home Office about such matters—setting the record straight. It could have been laid upon the Table and we would all have been comforted by it.

Mr. Adley: rose—

Mr. Tebbit: I really do not want to detain the House over this issue, but I will give way.

Mr. Adley: The hon. Member for Bradford, West made an impassioned denunciation of the old men in Peking, and we all agree that on the Richter scale of beastliness, it would be hard to find anyone who registers more than they do at the moment. But surely that is not the point. Our responsibility is to the people of Hong Kong and to the real world. The Chinese Government are the people with whom we have to deal, like it or not. Of course we all wish that the Government of China were more like the Government of Luxembourg, but they are not and we have to deal with matters as they are.

Mr. Tebbit: That is absolutely true. There is little chance that by berating those old men in this Chamber we will do anything to bring a beneficial change in China. As my hon. Friend says, it will make matters worse.
One other subject has been mentioned in connection with the amendment which I do not think was covered very well by the Labour amendments which have been selected; that is the position of people who may become stateless after 1997. I am not clear about the attitude of the Government towards those people. It would be helpful to all of us if the Under-Secretary were to make the Government's stance absolutely clear. Is it that, if any such persons are left stateless after 1997, they will be automatically granted either British citizenship or rights of abode, or do the Government have some other position?
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said that many such people had come from the Indian sub-continent. If that is where they came from, they might have a right to return.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: As I understand the position in regard to people who went to Hong Kong from the Indian sub-continent, they gave up any rights that they might have had to return when they agreed to take British citizenship offered in Hong Kong. I think that it is far from satisfactory that the British Government should now be taking a position whereby those people will be left with no proper passport or home following 1997, unless amendments are made to the Bill.

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend has a good point. If those people were induced by the British Government to go to Hong Kong by the issue of a document which deprived them of their nationality and will prevent them from returning to the countries from whence they came, it seems, even to me—I am not notably soft on immigration issues—that there is a case for saying that they should be found a home. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can give an estimate of the numbers concerned, and we could deduct that from the numbers which would otherwise be admitted under the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Those people who are properly resident in Hong Kong can apply for British dependent territory citizenship now. In 1997 British dependent territory citizens of Chinese descent will automatically become Chinese citizens. There is a question mark beside those who are not of Chinese descent. If they do not become Chinese citizens—that is a matter for the Chinese Government—they will be British overseas citizens, carrying a British overseas passport which will enable them to travel round the world to every country where there are residents who hold such passports. They will not have the right of abode in the United Kingdom, but they will have the right of abode in Hong Kong, and that will be guaranteed to them under the joint agreement.

Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making it clear that they will not be left as flying Dutchmen—perhaps flying Hong Kongmen would be a better expression—for ever circling the world and never being allowed to alight anywhere. If my hon. Friend can assure me that under the terms of the agreement the Chinese Government accept that they will have a right of abode in Hong Kong, it seems to me that there is no need for us to make specific provision for them. In the event of the Chinese Government not carrying out the undertaking, for some reason, there would be an emergency. We could deal with it in the way in which we always deal with emergencies. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for clearing up that point.

5 pm

Sir Peter Blaker: I intend to speak on the two subjects raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). The first related to urgency. I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) that the matter is urgent because of the brain drain, which has grown worse, in absolute numbers, compared with a couple of years ago. If one talks to representatives of British companies operating in Hong Kong, or with interests or investments in Hong Kong, it immediately becomes clear that they are beginning to feel the damage that is caused by the acceleration of the brain drain.
I have been told of key managers leaving Hong Kong to go to Australia, Canada and the United States. We are familiar with the recent raid by Qantas Airways in an attempt to take away 250 mechanics from the Hong Kong aircraft engineering industry Fortunately, the raid was unsuccessful, or had very limited success. That is an example of what we shall face in the future if we do not do something about it now. It is essential, therefore, that Parliament should pass the Bill.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) referred to the fact that many Hong Kong Chinese go to Canada or other countries to get the right of residence there, either through themselves or their families, and that many of them come back to Hong Kong. I know that many want to return to Hong Kong, but many of them, I fear, having established residence in Canada and having sent their children to school in Canada—for example, in Vancouver, which is a very agreeable city—find it much more difficult to return to Hong Kong and work there than they had expected when they left to go to Canada. We should not be too encouraged about the numbers who return to Hong Kong in those circumstances.
That is why this Bill is important. It provides a passport for 50,000 heads of families without their having to go and reside in another country for several years, with the consequence that most of them will not return to Hong Kong.

Mr. Marlow: I ask my right hon. Friend to transpose himself and think of himself as a successful Hong Kong Chinese citizen who is quite well-to-do and who has enough money to take his family with him, after having been offered a British passport. If he were to take the view that life after 1997 under a Hong Kong Chinese Government would be unacceptable and not in the best interests of his family, would he wait until 1997, or would he get out now so that he could re-establish himself and his family and his children's education at the first possible opportunity?

Sir Peter Blaker: I should certainly stay. I do not see why my hon. Friend thinks that I would want to exchange 15 per cent. income tax for 40 per cent. income tax, or that I should want to exchange the agreeably warm climate of Hong Kong for the sometimes chilly climate of England. My hon. Friend is right off the rails.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I refer the hon. Gentleman back to the question of emigration to Canada. The reason why people are going to Canada now and returning in the way that the right hon. Gentleman does not suggest that they are, but which I know they are, is the nature of the

Canadian scheme. They have to go now. If they had the option of delaying their emigration to Canada, they would surely do so. It is not that they go to Canada uniquely to establish a right of abode; often they set up businesses in Canada and then return to their businesses in Hong Kong. Frequently those companies intend to trade.

Sir Peter Blaker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's main point, although our assessment of how many people return to Hong Kong is different.
My second point relates to the Eurasians and Indians in Hong Kong. The Under-Secretary of State knows that I have been in correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the matter. I do not intend to repeat everything that I set out in that correspondence. It is right, however, that the matter should be raised, since I hope that I shall receive reassurance on the point from my hon. Friend at the end of the debate.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has already explained that the people to whom I refer will have neither British passports nor Chinese passports: they will have British national (overseas) or British dependent territories citizen passports. The Eurasians and the Indians are concerned that they will not have a right of abode elsewhere. They fear—whether they are right or wrong I do not say—that after 1997 they will not be so generously treated as they were during the period of British rule.
I have received representations from Mr. Eric Ho, a distinguished former senior civil servant, the president of the Welfare League which looks after the interests of the Eurasians. He refers to the great loyalty to the Crown and to this country of the Eurasians in Hong Kong. He quoted an extract from the dispatch by General Maltby after the capture of Hong Kong by the Japanese in December 1941.
General Maltby said:
In closing my despatch I wish to pay especial tribute to the Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Corps … To quote examples seems almost invidious, but I should like to place on record the superb gallantry of No. 3 (Eurasian) Company at Wong Nei Chong Gap".
That is a striking example of the loyalty that the Eurasian population of Hong Kong have always had to this country. Mr. Ho estimates that only 1,000 passports would be required, not for heads of families but for individuals, to provide for the needs of the Eurasian population.

Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend address his mind to a point that keeps worrying me during the debate: that 50,000 passports will largely go to 50,000 influential, articulate people who know their way around? Is my right hon. Friend willing to contemplate the following proposition: if by giving such an advantage to people who are in a position to apply we thereby destroy the atmosphere for the remaining 5 million Hong Kong citizens who are not so articulate and well connected, shall we be serving all the people of Hong Kong well?

Sir Peter Blaker: That is not my assessment of the likely effect on the morale of those who remain in Hong Kong. It is a difficult problem, but I believe that we are right to do what we are planning to do. In my view, it would be possible to put the figure a little higher than 50,000 heads of families, but that proposal is not before us.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend referred to the Tootal case. He said that it wants to bring 25 heads of household to this country. Given the


number of managers who are eligible, and given also the number of applicants that there are bound to be, it is most unlikely that all 25 managers will be successful in their applications. How can my right hon. Friend take the view that that will be good for the morale of the Tootal work force, let alone for the work forces of other companies, if that should prove to be divisive? What about the other managers that Tootal has not chosen for selection but who consider that they should be selected? The proposal will be totally divisive when it comes to the management of work forces in Hong Kong. It cannot possibly have the result for which the Government hope.

Sir Peter Blaker: Since the Second Reading debate I have had conversations with Mr. Geoffrey Maddrell, the managing director of Tootal, on that precise point. My hon. Friend is wrong to say that Tootal wants to bring 25 managers to this country. Tootal wants them to stay in Hong Kong, and that is what they want to do; indeed, most of them are working in south China. However, Mr. Maddrell acknowledged that there would be a problem if all the 25 are unable to obtain passports. Nevertheless, he believes that it is preferable that some of them should obtain passports rather than that none of them should. That, I believe, is a tenable position.
Reverting to the question of the Indians, it has been suggested that they were induced by a former British Government to Hong Kong, but that was not the reality. After the second world war, they made a choice between going for British nationality in Hong Kong or for Indian nationality. The Indian population has played a distinguished role in Hong Kong, particularly in commerce, and has been important to the colony's economy. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) suggested that there are many thousands of Indians in Hong Kong, but he was overstating the case.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary says in a letter to me:
If, against all expectations, any solely British national with no claim to Chinese nationality came under severe pressure to leave Hong Kong, the Government of the day would he expected to consider with considerable and particular sympathy their case for admission to the United Kingdom.
He was referring explicitly to the Eurasians, but I believe that he was intending a similar assurance to be given in relation to the Indians. Can my hon. Friend the Minister reaffirm that assurance, and perhaps go further in his response today?

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I cannot go beyond my right hon. and learned Friend's assurance, because it was intended to cover, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) said, Eurasians and other Asians—the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong who may not have Chinese citizenship after 1997. Who they will be is unclear because those who have Chinese citizenship is not something for us to determine—it is a matter for the People's Republic of China.
Those belonging to the ethnic minorities who are not included and who are legitimately in Hong Kong not only have the opportunity of becoming British overseas citizens, as I described earlier, with their situation guaranteed under the joint declaration, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear—and I am happy to repeat now—that if pressure is put upon them despite the joint declaration and their rights

under it, and if it became difficult for them to lead their lives in Hong Kong, we would look most carefully at any claim to right of settlement here, outside the rules.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am by no means satisfied that those who will have British overseas passports and British overseas status after 1997 will be welcome in Hong Kong. The Chinese are not noted for their welcome of other ethnic groups within their own society. I have no reason to believe that the Chinese Government will take a particularly sympathetic view of the presence of the Indian members of the Hong Kong community after 1997.
It is unfortunate that the Government have come to the House today without being able to give precise figures for how many such people there will be. We have a duty to bring them here if we have to do so, so I fear that we may expect substantial extra numbers after 1997, over and above those catered for in the Bill, to whom we shall have to offer homes in this country. It is important for the House to know how many people there may be, and that that estimate should be incorporated in the overall total being considered today, rather than have us return to those people at a later stage—as I warn the House we shall inevitably have to do.
It is extremely important that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary reports regularly to the House, as the hon. Member for Bradford, West, (Mr. Madden) suggested, when the Governor reports to him. Nothing in the Bill says that he has to do so. I should like a categorical assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Home Secretary will report at least annually in detail to the House on what he has been told by the Governor. That is the least assurance that the House should seek.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: If my hon. Friend is saying that there should be an annual report made by the Governor to our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and that it should be available to the House, that is exactly what new clause 12 will achieve.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am delighted to hear it. Perhaps I misunderstand the new clause. I thought that it only required the Governor to report to the Home Secretary—but if I have misunderstood the new clause, I am delighted.
It is also extremely important that the Governor should report on the speed and percentage of take-up in each category. I share the belief of the hon. Member for Bradford, West that there will be a sense of urgency among those in Hong Kong to make their applications for inclusion in the categories—not least because of the number of applications likely to be made against the number of available places. As soon as the Bill becomes an Act, the Government will face a deluge of applications. There is a great danger that, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary comes to the House next year with the Governor's first report, all 50,000 places will have been filled, which would be a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees.
5.15 pm
I again ask my hon. Friend to tell the House what guidance will be given to the Governor on the speed which he should fill the available places. If the scheme is to be


successful, and if it is to be spread among the people whom we are attempting to benefit and to persuade to remain in Hong Kong, there must be an annual quota.
Residents aged 30 to 40 are more than likely to have young teenage children. My understanding is that, as soon as those children reach 18, they will cease to qualify under the Bill and therefore will be separated from their families, should their families decide to come to this country to live. That cannot be something that the Government envisage. It would impose enormous extra pressure on any Hong Kong citizen with a BDTC passport who wants to make an application under the scheme. If residents have children who will shortly be 18, they will rush to make an application.
When one considers the number of people involved against the number of places available, it is horrifying to think that anyone would seriously propose that the scheme have a stabilising effect on Hong Kong. I refer to the guidance on the working of the Act, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) attempted, rightly, to have incorporated in the Bill. Unfortunately, that amendment is not before the House today.
In the business and management category, 342,800 people are eligible under the scheme, but only 19,703 will be allocated places. In engineering, there are 57,300 possible candidates but only 3,230 places. In medicine and science, 44,700 would qualify but only 2,584 would be offered places. Members of my old profession, lawyers, will do particularly badly. Less than 1 per cent. of the 3,700 eligible will be allocated one of the 323 places. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too many".] I agree that we could do without further competition, but how will it stabilise the legal profession in Hong Kong if only 323 of their number will be offered passports? I await with breathless excitement to hear how my hon. Friend the Minister will satisfy me on that point.
The Governor will also have to report on the categories for residents in sensitive service and in the disciplined services. The number of places stated in the Bill to be available to those who have given outstanding service to the Crown, and who might be in danger if they remain in Hong Kong after 1997, is 6,300. Where does that figure come from? Is my hon. Friend the Minister satisfied that 6,300 is the number of heads of households who fall into that category? Nothing in the Second Reading or Committee debates, which I read in great detail, sets out how that figure of 6,300 was arrived at.

Mr. Butcher: If the House accepts that the 50,000 places will be rapidly allocated and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) will be among those asking for more categories of people to be admitted, are we not debating the beginning of the minimum bid, from which the bidding will go up when we come to debate the Governor's reports in years to come?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I agree. When the 50,000 places have been filled and an awful lot of people in categories to which places clearly must be allocated have been left, then the 50,000 which the Government have undertaken as a maximum will have to be breached. That is one of the reasons why I am worried and why it is essential that regular reports to this House show how we are progressing, so that we can take whatever steps are necessary either to allow more people in—I would find

that difficult—or somehow to stem the flood in other categories and to alter the way in which we choose those who will come.
I hope that the Minister will tell me how the 6,300 figure miraculously appeared and how—there is nothing in the memorandum to tell us—if there are more than 6,300 in this category, a choice will be made between them. If I read the memorandum correctly, the points system does not apply to this group.
The points system does apply, however, to the disciplined services. Seven thousand places have been allocated to those services, spread across eight separate services on a proportional basis. Here, too, it is inconceivable that many of these services will have enough allocated places to satisfy the demand or to stabilise the position in Hong Kong, the latter being one of the two fundamental requirements that the Government seek to meet in the Bill.
I am sorry to say that I am profoundly disturbed by the proposal that the memorandum should be adopted, but I welcome the new clause, because it will at least give the House a regular report on how the measure is being implemented.

Mr. George Walden: I have followed my hon. Friend's argument, which he has expressed with a certain elegant scepticism, but I am left wondering what the logical conclusion of it is. It seems to me that it can either be that more people ought to be offered more places or that no one ought to be offered any places, which brings us back to the Government's point of view.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; sad to say, the amendment that I tabled has not been chosen by Mr. Speaker, so I cannot enlighten my hon. Friend on what the correct solution is.
In my view, there are two categories that we have an honourable commitment to allow into this country: first, people who have done service that will put them in danger after 1997. I have dealt with them in some detail. Secondly, there are those who will be left stateless or with inadequate passports after 1997—especially people from the Indian subcontinent, about whom I spoke earlier. If we gave the right of abode and citizenship to those two categories, we would fulfil our commitment to Hong Kong and the commitment that the Government have given to the people of this country, which was outlined so eloquently on Second Reading by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). In that way, we should avoid flooding this country with immigrants from other places, given that we are an overcrowded island experiencing great difficulties already with assimilating the immigrants whom we have taken in in the past 30 years.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) for tabling the new clause in answer to some of the debates that took place in Committee. I admire the courteous and professional way in which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude) conducted our debates in Committee, which greatly helped the passage of the Bill.
Although I welcome an annual report, it has already been pointed out that the new clause is deficient, in that the report is to the Secretary of State, not necessarily to


Parliament. So the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) will not get his way if the new clause is passed without amendment.
Such a report may well go to the Secretary of State for the Home Department; the Home Department is not known for releasing the least bit of information that could possibly be classified as confidential. I very much doubt whether the report will see the light of day outside a few offices and desks in the Home Department—unless the Home Office carries out what I understood to be an undertaking from the Minister that he would present the report to the House. That presentation and the report's contents are important.
If I understand the Government's argument aright, the report will contain no reference to categories of people not accommodated under the Bill—the Eurasian and Indian population, and the spouses who will be dealt with in an amendment to be moved later. Categories not dealt with in the Bill will be dealt with exactly as they would be under the British Nationality Act 1981. So the categories for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), in a caring and understandable way, sought exemption cannot possibly be included in such a report.
The argument that they should be accommodated by the Bill and dealt with in the annual report is symptomatic of the chaos that the Bill will create in Hong Kong because of the jealousies and hard feelings that will be generated when one person is selected and another is not. One category, for whom we have already heard special pleading on the Floor of the House, will not be accommodated by the Bill. The whole process of trying to select one person in preference to another is divisive and will profoundly undermine confidence in the future of Hong Kong.

Mr. Butcher: Is not the House coming to a general agreement that the Bill is custom designed to alienate more people than it placates? Are we not setting in train a series of rather unpleasant rows for the remaining years until 1997? Is this a way to draw up legislation and immigration and community relations policy in the colony? Will we not have to come back to the House in coming years for rows about categories of people who have not been successful, about further categories that should be considered and about further numbers? Surely the House should think again, even at this late stage, about the time-bomb that we are priming for future rows?

Mr. Wells: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and it will be worse than he has said. Although there is no appeal process, the people of Hong Kong are well educated and perfectly capable of sending letters. Most of those whom I have met—some of them from humble backgrounds—are capable, for instance, of writing to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South to outline their dissatisfaction, which I am sure he would then bring to the attention of Ministers.
I believe that the Minister introduced the idea of the annual report because of the constitutional outrage contained in clause 1(1), which specifies:
the Secretary of State shall register as British citizens up to 50,000 persons recommended to him for that purpose by the Governor of Hong Kong".
It is quite wrong that a governor in a colonial country should be able to register people as British citizens without reference to an elected Minister who is responsible to this House.
By introducing the annual report—I trust the Minister's undertaking that he will produce it for the House's inspection and debate, but that is not certain—the Minister will be accountable for the actions and decisions taken by the Governor and his appointed sub-committees. That is an outrageous innovation, to which we shall regret. That is the kind of ingenious and generous way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham has tried to meet the point. The Bill is difficult for him. He finds it difficult to change one jot or iota because of the consequences of so doing for immigration policy, particularly the interpretation of our law as enshrined in the British Nationality Act 1981.
5.30 pm
I hope that the report will state how many people applied for British citizenship, how many were refused and why they were refused. Many of these applications will be made by private sector companies and groups and even by people within the civil service, but there will be no explanation of why others have been left out. That will cause much resentment, and I hope that the report will explain why they have been left out.
Equally, the report should say how many people have been accepted and why they were accepted. The Bill has a specific purpose—to retain those in the service of the Government or of private sector businesses in Hong Kong. We need to know why they were offered British citizenship. We want to know how many people stayed, having been offered British citizenship in Hong Kong. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South and many people from OMELCO—I am glad to see that we welcomed the leader of OMELCO—believe that, once people have been granted British citizenship, they will remain in Hong Kong. But someone with young children who wishes them to continue their education will wish to move to Britain soon after they receive citizenship.
We should see whether the Bill is working as the Government said it would—whether it is retaining those people in Hong Kong up to 1997 and beyond. Surely the argument is they should stay beyond 1997 and continue the amazing success of Hong Kong.

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is on the verge of making a point that has not been picked up by every hon. Member. Once these people are granted British passports, they are British citizens, but we would have no record of whether they have come to live in Britain, because we do not keep a record of British passport holders entering Britain. All we would know is whether they had left Hong Kong. We would not know where they had gone, whether they were intent on staying away or whether they intended to reside here. Many of them will be highly talented people, which is why they are being selected.
I can imagine the advertisements in the Hong Kong newspapers from British companies, once it is known that they have British passports, seeking to recruit them to work in Britain. They would be good employees for those British companies and they would have the right of abode here because they would be full British citizens. The door would be wide open for massive emigration from Hong Kong—the complete opposite of what the Government say they want.

Mr. Wells: My right hon. Friend is entirely right, and shares my concern. These people, once they have a British passport enabling them to travel freely, will have the


opportunity to offer their services to many of the highest bidding companies not only in this country but elsewhere in the world.
We have been assured by the Minister that the Hong Kong Government keep a record of those leaving the colony and of their destination, but they would not know whether they got off the plane on the way back to Britain or, as my right hon. Friend says, whether they had arrived here and are still here. It is essential that the report records those who have stayed in Hong Kong and those who have not, so that we can judge whether the Government's action is working as they said it would.
As we all know, the success of Hong Kong depends not on our giving 50,000 heads of households a British passport and citizenship but on the development of relations with China. If the purpose of the Bill is to try to reinforce confidence in the future of Hong Kong, the annual report should record and detail how relationships have been conducted between Hong Kong and China, not only at ministerial level, about which I hope we will hear, but at official level. With robust, continuous and persuasive effort and contact with the Chinese Government, confidence will build and hon. Members will be able to ascertain whether the Hong Kong Government are fulfilling the job we expect them to do—to try to get on with China, for the benefit of Hong Kong's future, as well as they can. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley).
The Bill's success will depend on whether the Government of Hong Kong have made the right proposals for democracy and a directly elected legislature in Hong Kong to replace the British Government, who have provided the Government in Hong Kong so successfully over the years. The successful functioning of that body and the participation of the Hong Kong people in leadership decisions will ensure that Hong Kong continues to operate as a capitalist enclave under democratic government, as the agreement of 1984, which we are treaty-bound to honour, sets out.

Mr. Adley: Hong Kong has succeeded despite there being no worthwhile democratic institutions there. As a matter of debate, will my hon. Friend comment on two points? First, why would changing that improve Hong Kong? Secondly, as the joint agreement calls for the maintenance of stability and prosperity, why does my hon. Friend think that fundamental change to the democratic institutions is in accord with the 1984 agreement?

Mr. Wells: Let me take the last point first. We are committed, by the treaty, to an elected legislative assembly and an elected or indirectly elected president or chief executive. Hong Kong has not had a directly elected assembly, and I have been a critic of that for many years, without success.
I have not been successful because the Hong Kong formula has worked. It has worked because those administering Hong Kong on behalf of the Crown have been responsible to this Chamber through the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. It has been possible to change the chief executive and the Civil Service. That offered an in-built means of preventing corruption from taking place. The tradition and culture of officials of the Hong Kong Government who are of British origin

were also in-built. For that reason, they built houses and took account of the social conditions of Hong Kong, which is why we can see the culture and social ideas that have been a feature of this country repeated in Hong Kong. That is part of the great success of Hong Kong. Hong Kong's present problem is how to replace that. It must be done by treaty, democracy and a directly elected assembly.

Mr. Walden: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a little unfair to criticise the Government, as has been done implicitly or explicitly by both sides of the House, for provoking the Chinese by giving 50,000 passports to their future citizens and at the same time criticise the Government for not provoking the Chinese by moving towards democracy much faster than Peking wants and, incidentally, risking destabilisation of Hong Kong on a much broader and deeper scale than is risked by the Bill?

Mr. Wells: I do not accept that analysis. I am confused about the reason why the Government are prepared to offend the Chinese Government. The Chinese Government have issued press releases and sent letters saying that they regard this action as, in spirit, an abrogation of the treaty that they signed. They believe that we are not working in accordance with the spirit of the agreements.
On the other hand, the British Government are not prepared to press the Chinese Government on the issue of democracy. When the Foreign Affairs Select Committee visited Peking, we went into this question in great detail, and the result is recorded in the Committee's report. Just before the events in Tiananmen square, the Chinese Government said that they were prepared to let democracy develop at the speed at which those in Hong Kong wanted it to develop. After Tiananmen square—I am not saying that it was a little lily-livered and in two minds before then—OMELCO came forward with support for the establishment of democracy on a much faster time scale than has now been agreed.
I can only welcome the assertions by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that he will work to persuade Chinese Ministers to accelerate that programme so that there is a directly elected assembly and directly elected chief executive before 1997, so that the people of Hong Kong can begin to breathe life and credibility into those institutions and fulfil the work of governing Hong Kong democratically. I hope that progress on that democracy, which is essential for confidence in the future of Hong Kong, will be reported upon.
There should be a report on the economy and the way in which the private sector is acting. Much of the Bill has been stimulated by the private sector in Hong Kong being unwilling, understandably, to have some of the crucial skilled people and leaders in companies leave. I should like to be able to test the private sector's commitment to the future of Hong Kong. I should like to see in the report a paragraph stating how many of those people continue to reside and trade in Hong Kong, how many of the companies have sought different places for their headquarters and the extent to which these people, who are asking us to make this sacrifice, are prepared to make sacrifices for confidence in Hong Kong's future.
It is essential that we get the emigration numbers straight, and this should be clear in the report. There is


confusion, as the House has demonstrated. Looking at the numbers purely in raw terms, the emigration figures this year are down compared with last year. Emigration from Hong Kong has always taken place, but in making a judgment on these matters, it is important to consider the categories emigrating. Whether the Bill is a success or not will depend on whether that emigration is stemmed and whether it is stemmed in particular categories.
The report must include a record of the Chinese Government's attitude to the future of Hong Kong. The future of Hong Kong and its people rests increasingly with the attitude, work and confidence-building measures of the Chinese Government to build Hong Kong under two systems, one country.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I share the surprise of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) about the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not appear to have any final power to override the Governor's recommendations as to who might be admitted. I am surprised that the Home Office agreed to that. I should have thought that there were circumstances in which such a power would be necessary. I should like to hear an explanation from my hon. Friend the Minister as to why this provision is not included in the Bill.
I should like to comment on what I believe would be an important part of a report from the Governor. The idea of such a report is welcome and I am glad that the report is to be made available to the House. When the Government first published their scheme, I was concerned because, in 1981, I had been heavily involved in the passage of the British Nationality Bill.
The principle embodied in that legislation was that British citizenship was to be based on a number of criteria, all of which implied close involvement in Britain. Those criteria were birth, descent, residence or marriage, and descent did not stretch far back into the past. I was afraid that the scheme might be used as a convenience by people in Hong Kong who would see it as a way of, to put it crudely, establishing a bolthole, and who would come to Britain to exercise their citizenship but might then disappear fairly rapidly for other parts of the world. That seemed to be a problem and a sense in which the scheme might be out of line with the philosophy behind the British Nationality Bill.
I was relieved, therefore, when the Government included in the legislation the provision that spouses and children—the dependants of those who were to be given passports—would be classified as British citizens by descent. That meant that, at least if they went overseas, they would not have the same power to pass on citizenship to the next generation and we would therefore not see the proliferation, which I feared, of British citizens living in many parts of the world who had no real links with the United Kingdom. The inclusion of that provision was one reason that led me, after much thought, to support the legislation on Second Reading.
I am concerned about one group of people living in Hong Kong who, by almost any common-sense standards, clearly have great loyalty to the United Kingdom but who may not be served by the Bill—employees of the British Council. As a vice-chairman of the British Council, I obviously have a particular interest in this matter. I am

talking not about London-based employees but about the locally based employees. I understand that there were about 60 such employees in April.
These employees may well fall into one of the relevant occupational categories proposed in the draft scheme. They may be included in the information services or education groups, and of course I would welcome that. The question is whether they would score enough points under the points system. There are two respects in which they would obviously do well—command of English and British links. Those two categories would clearly be beneficial to them, but in neither case do they score highly in the proposed points system. They get only 50 points for each. There is a risk that people who are working for the British Council will not qualify under the scheme, which would be nonsense.
I am not asking for additional places; I am simply saying that these people should be allowed to qualify. No group of people in Hong Kong serves the British cause more loyally, and often for a longer time, than British Council employees. I know that a similar argument could be made for the employees of the British Trade Commission and I am aware of the great importance of promoting British trade in Hong Kong, but it is specifically the British Council with which I am concerned. I therefore hope that it will be seen clearly from the first Governor's report that those who work for the British Council who have applied for British citizenship will be well served. I would go further: I hope that we shall not have to wait for the first Governor's report to get the reassurance that we seek. I hope that we may receive it from the Minister this evening.

Mr. Marlow: The Bill gives the Governor of Hong Kong a great many scarcely fettered powers. The new clause seeks to provide that the Governor should make an annual report on the discharge of his functions. My hon. Friend the Minister said that the report would he made available to the House. I trust that, in his closing remarks, he will make it clear that the report will be open to debate.
The Bill has been introduced to deal with problems that may or may not arise in the future. The future is uncertain; circumstances may change. It is vital, on an issue as sensitive as this, that as those circumstances change, the House should have an annual opportunity to debate the situation and to commend or recommend any changes that we may feel are necessary.
The Bill is about the way in which the Governor should discharge his responsibilities. I am sure that he should discharge those responsibilities in the light of commitments that have been given. Commitments have been given at many levels and by many different people. Initially— and the Bill is the result—commitments were given to the people of Hong Kong by Ministers or the Prime Minister to the effect that provisions would be introduced to allow up to 50,000 persons and their families to come to the United Kingdom. Those commitments were made by the Government; they have not yet been made by Parliament, and it is not the role of Parliament to act as a rubber stamp for what the Government say they wish to do.
We have other commitments, which go wider. We have commitments under international law. We have commitments within the European Community. We have commitments to deal with refugees and asylum. But we also have a commitment that is more important than all of those commitments put together: we have a commitment


to the British people—to the people of these islands, whose only home this is. The Conservative party has made that commitment clear on a number of occasions. During our election campaign in 1970, we said in our manifesto that there would be no further large-scale permanent immigration into this country. The Conservative party won the 1970 election and has been in government for most of the time since that election. Since that time, however, we have had a migration into this country of between 750,000 and 1 million people from the third world.
I do not believe that what we have done since 1970 accords with the commitment that we gave in that year In every election manifesto since 1970, we have given a firm, powerful—and, I hope, binding—commitment to the British people that we will take account of their fears and concerns about immigration. In 1987 we said:
We will tighten the existing law to ensure that control over settlement becomes even more effective.
Yet the Bill suggests that an extra 250,000 people of different cultures and ethnic backgrounds should be allowed to come to Britain, which is the only home—the already restricted space—that the British people have. To proceed with the Bill would be, should be—and will be, if the Bill is passed—a blot on the conscience of the Government.
It is true that we have many commitments, but we cannot fulfil all of them. The most important commitment that we have made is the commitment to the British people, whose Parliament this is, who supported us, who voted for us and in whose interests the Government should act.

Mr. Maclennan: Does not the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that this Government—and this Parliament—are also responsible, as the only Government the people of Hong Kong have, for the people of Hong Kong, and that must also be weighed in the balance?

Mr. Marlow: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman. I said that we had many commitments, and many of them are conflicting commitments. Obviously we must take account of the circumstances in Hong Kong. We have responsibilities to the people of Hong Kong and we must discharge them as best we can. I would wish the Government to do that. But the Government of Britain have an overriding commitment and it is to the people of this country. That has to come first.

Mr. Maclennan: indicated dissent.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman says no. I wonder whether he is aware that more than half the children in Inner London education authority schools are of non-British ethnic origin. London is our capital city. When those children grow up, they will be citizens of this country. That will mean that half our citizens—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Mr. Speaker told the House that we should have a wide-ranging debate on the new clause, but the debate is now becoming enormously elastic, and I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would refer to the new clause.

Mr. Marlow: As you have instructed me not to do so, Madam Speaker, I shall not follow up the intervention of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).
The new clause says:
The Governor of Hong Kong shall submit to the Secretary of State an annual report".
It will be an annual report on how he has done his job and carried out his functions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) suggested a number of issues which he thinks should be included in the report. It is also the intention of the Bill to keep people in Hong Kong. I believe that, if circumstances in China do not improve—indeed, if they get worse—anyone who has been offered a British passport will not delay or stay until 1997.
Such people will not keep the ship on course and their businesses running; they will seek to get out with their families as soon as possible. If they have to get out, they will get out now. If they have to re-establish a career, they will do it early. If they have to get their funds, cash and investments out of Hong Kong, better safe than sorry. If they have a young family whom they want to educate, the sooner they can bring them to a country with a different system of education and get them on the way to being educated, the better.
It is important that in each of the annual reports, the effectiveness of the Bill in fulfilling the Government's intention should be made crystal clear. Passports have been issued. How many people, having been issued those passports, will leave at the earliest opportunity? If the House has that information, we may be able to reach a view as to whether the Bill is correct and effective or whether we wish to amend it further.
In his report, the Governor should also make an account of changes in China. In the past year, the whole nature of Europe has changed; the whole nature of the Soviet Union has changed; it is to be hoped that the whole nature of the conflict between east and west—the cold war—is also changing.

Mr. George Foulkes: You have not changed.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman says that I am still the same. But the British people are still the same. I submit to the hon. Gentleman that my view of the Bill is shared by 90 per cent. of his constituents, just as it is shared by 90 per cent. of mine. The nature of circumstances in China 'could change, and if those circumstances change, the Bill may no longer be necessary.
Again, the House may seek to amend the provisions in the Bill. As I have said, the Governor will have unfettered power. He will have a fantastic amount of power. According to clause 1(1):
Subject to the provisions of this section, the Secretary of State shall register as British citizens up to 50,000 persons".
I presume that the Governor can decide how close to that
figure of 50,000 that should apply. If circumstances in China change, I presume that the Governor will be able to reduce that number to 30,000 or 20,000.
I am more concerned by the provision that
the Secretary of State shall register as British citizens … persons recommended to him for that purpose by the Governor of Hong Kong".
What would happen if my hon. Friend the Minister, in the discharge of his duties, was aware of the fact that a person in Hong Kong was connected with a criminal organization


such as the Triads and connected with someone who was already in Britain? Suppose the Governor had said that that person should be issued with a British passport and the Home Office felt that it was not appropriate for that person to enter Britain because of the activities in which he might well indulge and there was evidence that he might well indulge, my hon. Friend the Minister would be completely powerless to do anything about that.

Mr. Madden: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman is talking abject nonsense. The Home Secretary would simply issue an exclusion order stating that the presence of the individual concerned was not conducive to good order in this country, and that person would not be admitted.

6 pm

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but that is matter of assertion and proof. If the person concerned has a British passport —

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Marlow: Of course.

Mr. Lloyd: I hesitate to interrupt, because I know that I might give my hon. Friend cause to continue for another 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour. However, I want to assure him that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has a duty to assure himself that any recommendation from the Governor is of a person of the right character to receive British citizenship. If he is not so assured, he may not register that person as a British citizen.

Mr. Marlow: I accept my hon. Friend's assertion in principle. However, as I read clause 1, it appears that that is not the case.

Mr. Lloyd: Read the whole Bill.

Mr. Marlow: I have indeed read the whole Bill. Clause 1 would seem to allow that to happen.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman should not make such categoric assertions without reading clause 5, which explicitly gives the Secretary of State the power to reject a recommendation if he believes that that person
is not of good character.

Mr. Marlow: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says; no doubt this debate will continue for some time.
I am concerned about other issues in the Bill. The Governor will put forward a scheme which will be agreed by the House, but he shall be authorised
to decide at his discretion between persons equally qualified under the scheme;
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can tell us how the Governor will carry out that judgment of Solomon. Will there be a ballot? Will people draw straws? How will those details be considered?
The Governor is getting a great deal of power. For the first time in British history, a civil servant, not an elected Government or a Minister, will be entitled effectively to award British citizenship to people from outside this country. That is a matter that should cause the House a great deal of concern, and I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about that.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Although it seems a long time ago, I agree with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland

(Mr. Maclennan), who said that the new clause is narrow. It would help progress this evening if I were to treat it as such.
I was glad that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) appeared to be happy to accept new clause 12 in place of new clause 1. He raised a number of issues; and indeed every hon. Member had his own ideas about what he would like to see in the Governor's report. I have noted those points and I will consider them with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and with the Governor. However, the new clause requires the report to be on the Governor's functions under the Bill. The Governor will certainly want to set his report in the broadest context so that it is useful to the Home Secretary, to the Government and to the House so that we may all judge how our duties and responsibilities are being discharged in Hong Kong.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) were anxious that the report, which I said would be made available to the House by the Home Secretary, should be debated. That is not a matter for me or for the Home Secretary; it is a matter for the House. However, the Home Secretary and I would be pleased if the report was debated in the House because we would like Parliament to give continuing attention to Hong Kong and to the evolution of our duties and responsibilities there.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West also wondered whether the appropriate Select Committees, either the Foreign Affairs Select Committee or the Home Affairs Select Committee, would also take a close interest in these matters. Again, that is not a matter for the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary or me; it is a matter for the Select Committees concerned and the House. I hope that those Committees will interest themselves in the subject, and it would be valuable if they did.
Most of the other points that were raised in the debate either affect issues on which I cannot give definitive answers now or relate to matters that will arise in later amendments. However, I want to refer to an observation made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). I intervened once in his speech and I did riot want to encourage him by doing so again. He said that a Minister—I do not know who he was referring to—intimated on Second Reading that the Government believed that the Government of China were happy with the Bill. No Minister made such a statement on Second Reading. However, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that he hoped in due time that the Government of the People's Republic of China, and I hope some of my hon. Friends, would come to understand fully the intentions of the Bill and be happy with the results that it produces.

Mr. Adley: May I ask my hon. Friend—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister was not giving way. He has resumed his seat, and it is now my duty to put the Question.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

ROLE OF THE COURTS

'Nothing in this Act effects the Jurisdiction of any Court to entertain proceedings of any description concerning the operation of any provisions of this Act or made under it.'.—[Mr. Darling.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Darling: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 37, in clause 1, page 1, line 21, leave out 'Neither'.

No. 38, in page 1, line 21, leave out 'nor' and insert 'or'.

No 39, in page 1, line 22, leave out 'any reason' and insert 'reasons'.

No 40, in page 1, line 23, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 24.

No. 49, in page 1, line 24, at end insert—
'() Nothing in this Section affects the jurisdiction of any Court to entertain proceedings of any description concerning the rights of any person under any provision of this Act.'.

No 18, in clause 3, page 2, line 41, at end insert—
'(5) Any Hong Kong resident of a class, group, category or description qualified for registration under subsection (1) above, Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 to this Act who, having made application to the Governor to be recommended for registration under section 1(1) of this Act, is not so recommended shall have the right of appeal to the Secretary of State.'

Mr. Darling: We move from new clause 12, which was uncontroversial, to one that may be controversial. However, as it is quite narrowly focused, it may be possible narrowly to focus our discussions on it. The purpose of the new clause is to make it clear that it will be possible to raise proceedings judicially to review any decision that may be made under this legislation.
It would not normally be necessary to add such a new clause because it is normally well settled in law that it is possible to review any administrative decision. Unfortunately, because of the language in which the Bill is framed, it would appear that it is the Government's intention to exclude any such possibility.
Before considering the question of judicial review, as there was some confusion when we discussed the matter in Committee, perhaps I should make it clear exactly what we are discussing. We are not discussing the possibility of an individual appeal; we are discussing the more narrow legal concept of judicial review of a decision.
If I illustrate it, the position will perhaps become clear. If an individual were awarded a certain number of points under the scheme, it would not be possible for him to appeal simply because he did not like the number of points that he was allocated. It would be possible to raise proceedings only if his allegation was that those allocating the points had taken into account matters that they should not have taken into account or, alternatively, failed to take into account matters that they should have considered. It is a well settled point of law, but it is fairly narrow. It is the way open to individuals to question an administrator when an administrator has done something that he should not have done because he had no power to do it or, alternatively, when an administrator failed to do the things that he should have done.
I want to make that point clear because this is not a wrecking measure; it is not as amendment No. 18 appears to be. I do not see any purpose in clogging up a system to

allow perhaps 200,000 appeals for anyone who was aggrieved who did not qualify under the scheme. That would be quite wrong. I make the Opposition's position quite clear. We oppose the legislation for the reasons that we have outlined, but it has not been our purpose, either in Committee or today on Report, to put forward amendments other than in the spirit of trying to improve a Bill as best we can, notwithstanding the fact that we consider that its basis is wrong.
It is quite wrong that the Government should attempt or purport to exclude any possibility of appeal. Clause 1(5) provides:
Neither the Secretary of State nor the Governor shall be required to give any reason for any decision made by him in the exercise of a discretion vested in him by or under this Act and no such decision shall be subject to appeal or liable to be questioned in any court.
On one construction that would mean that it would not even be possible to question any decision, let alone any appeal, and it could be that anyone attempting to lodge papers to start appeal proceedings would be told by the clerk, "Sorry, any proceedings under this Act are simply not competent." I know that the Government have a slightly different interpretation, and I shall refer to it shortly, but perhaps it should be stated again and again that it does not matter what any hon. Member says during proceedings in this House. A court will have regard to what is in the Act, not to what Ministers or hon. Members have to say.
That issue was raised in Committee, and the Government's position was set out in a letter by the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). The Minister said:
I have now … considered the matter again but have concluded that an amendment would indeed be unnecessary, and furthermore would be unhelpful.
I am bound to say that I cannot see how spelling out a
citizen's rights can ever be unhelpful, but, to the Government, perhaps such a step would be unhelpful. The Minister went on to say:
Whatever grounds there may have been for including section 44(3) in the 1981 Act there are none for including a corresponding provision in the Bill.
Section 44(3) of the 1981 Act, which is the British Nationality Act that governs citizenship in this country, has a similar privilege. It states quite explicitly:
Nothing in this section affects the jurisdiction of any court to entertain proceedings of any description concerning the rights of any person under any provision of this Act.
In other words, it is quite clear that, under the British Nationality Act 1981, it is possible, and is explicitly stated, judicially to review any decision made under it. There is no corresponding provision within the Bill, and our new clause would add one.
The Government seem to think that there is a distinction between the 1981 Act and this Bill. Again I refer to the letter from the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East. He said that the 1981 Act
confers entitlements to be registered as a British citizen … The Bill confers no such rights".
I fail to see that distinction. The 1981 Act spells out when one is entitled to citizenship and when one is not, and the Bill sets up a system, but the result is exactly the same. Under the Bill, it is possible to acquire British citizenship with all the rights that citizenship acquired under the 1981 Act can achieve. I believe firmly that it should be possible judicially to review decisions made either under this Bill or


under any other Act. As I said, the Bill entitles an individual, if he or she has a grievance about how the system works, to air it before a court. That seems to be a basic concept of human rights and one that we should not exclude.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the new clause would protect a person who was deemed to be not of good character? Could such an individual appeal against such a judgment?

Mr. Darling: It depends. To appeal or to get a court to uphold that the decision was bad, he would have to show that the Secretary of State took into account factors that he should not have taken into account before coming to his conclusion. If the Home Secretary, in exercising his discretion, takes account of all relevant considerations, the matter is not subject to appeal.
6.15 pm
In other words, if the Home Secretary looked at all the facts before him and said, "I think that this person is of bad character," that would be the end of the matter. However, if he looked at all the facts before him and they did not disclose evidence of bad character but he then said, "I do not like this individual because he voted Labour at the last election; therefore, I think that he is of bad character," that matter could be reviewed judicially, or at least it could be so reviewed under the new clause.

Mr. Madden: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as he rightly says, under the 1981 Act it is impossible for an applicant who is refused to appeal? Indeed, there is no right for an explanation from the Secretary of State if an applicant is refused. However, it is possible for an hon. Member or a Member of the other place to ask the Secretary of State for an explanation. Clearly, if the decision is thought to have been taken on incorrect information, it is possible to ask the Secretary of State to review the decision to refuse citizenship. Am I right in assuming that, if that were the case under this scheme, it would be open to residents of Hong Kong who are refused to ask Members of this House or Members of the other place to make representations to the Secretary of State in the way that I have described?

Mr. Darling: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is no. The subsection to which I referred makes it clear that neither the Secretary of State nor the Governor shall be required to give any reason for any decisions. That matter was raised at some length in Committee. It would appear that, as the legislation is phrased, no reason shall be given. That means that any aggrieved individual may be at some disadvantage. In the case of a decision by a housing department in failing to allocate a set number of points to a housing application, it is normally quite easy for an individual to find out why the decision was made.
The Government have phrased the Bill in terms to exclude the giving of reasons. That is regrettable. It is regrettable also that, as I understand it, it appears to be the view of those at least who purport to speak for Hong Kong those who come to this country—that that is entirely acceptable in Hong Kong. I do not accept that. Our new clause would not put that right. We explored that matter in Committee, but we are not able to do so on Report. Those in another place, when considering the legislation, may want to return to that point.
I accept that my new clause is limited to that extent, but my primary concern at this stage is to ensure that it is possible for a judicial review to take place. As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State and the Governor do not need to give any reasons, and the matter cannot be questioned in court. That is wrong. I am trying to put right the appeal point. We tried at an earlier stage to put right both points.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether, in moving new clause 2, it is his intention effectively to repeal the provision in clause 1(5) which would exclude decisions which have been taken in the exercise discretion from liability to be questioned in a court? On the face of it, it seems that the new clause would achieve that result. Is that the hon. Gentleman's intention?

Mr. Darling: Indeed it is. I am not too proud to say that I took a leaf out of the hon. Gentleman's book. In Committee he attempted a similar exercise with about as much success as I anticipate achieving this evening. The obvious criticism that the Government will make is that I am breaking new ground, but all I am doing is following the 1981 Act, which sets out as a general proposition that no reasons will be given and no challenges made. That excludes the sort of appeal about which I spoke earlier. It goes on to state that nothing in the Act could possibly exclude the question of judicial review. If any matter comes before the courts, those acting for the Home Office may well say that, if Parliament had intended there to be an appeal, it would have followed the same model as the 1981 Act, which this Bill does not. That is why it is so important that Parliament leaves the courts in no doubt that we do not want to exclude the possibility of reviewing an administrative decision.
In my experience, if administrative decisions are not subject to review, it creates an injustice and tends to make for bad decision making. We have many examples of that. With the best will in the world, people who make administrative decisions tend to make better ones if they think that they may be held to account and questioned at the end of the day. Obviously the Government know that the scheme has drawbacks and flaws. They have been touched on, particularly by Tory Members, or at least by those who are making constructive suggestions on the Bill. Obviously those who will make the decisions are aware that they may run into difficulty. It was understandable that those who put together the initial drafts—I expect that they were administrators themselves—were keen to exclude any possibility of appeal. I am sure that many who take administrative decisions, if left to to their own devices, would like to exclude appeal in a wide range of Bills.
It would be wrong if we were to agree with any idea that judicial review should be excluded. Judicial review would improve the Bill and it would not in any way undermine the intention behind the Bill. Indeed, that is not the purpose of the new clause. It would make for better administration, and it would certainly get round the obvious injustice where someone believes that something has gone wrong for example, in the allocation of the points system, yet can do absolutely nothing about it. We have talked about the resentment that the scheme will create, which is undeniable, but a greater injustice and resentment will be caused if individuals feel that they cannot air a grievance either here or in Hong Kong.

Mr. Marlow: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if he has already covered this point, but I had to leave the Chamber, as one does from time to time. Will he make it clear—no doubt he is seduced by what he reads in the opinion polls—whether, if there were a Labour Government, they would introduce judicial review into this Bill?

Mr. Darling: I do not think that we would have any difficulty in introducing the possibility of judicial review into any administrative decisions. We may have something to say about that before too long.

Mr. Marlow: Is that the hon. Gentleman's intention?

Mr. Darling: One advantage of having passed new clause 12 is that we shall have an opportunity to review how the Bill works. I cannot give any commitment about what legislation we are proposing. It will depend on what the circumstances allow.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Darling: If I may finish the point, I shall certainly—

Mr. Lloyd: I am trying to be helpful.

Mr. Darling: I am sure that the Minister is trying to be helpful. If the opportunity presents itself, I cannot see why we would not want to introduce judicial review as a safeguard. It is an important point of principle as well as one which would improve the Bill.

Mr. Lloyd: The question is not whether a Labour Government would make judicial review available under the Bill. It is available. It is just that clause 1(5) states categorically that judicial review will not be available where the Governor or the Secretary of State is exercising a discretion. For the rest of the Bill, judicial review is available, as it always is in every Bill.

Mr. Darling: I thought that the Minister was going to be helpful, but he was simply getting his oar in early. I am coming to that argument. The Minister wrote to me on the subject and I shall deal with it.
To complete the point raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), we have already made it clear that, as any incoming Government would do, we shall see how things are working generally, and this provision will be no different.
In a memorandum which the Minister circulated, he put the Government's view, which is that nothing in the Bill excludes the jurisdiction of the courts from carrying out a judicial review. Therefore, I cannot see why he should object to new clause 2, which makes that explicit rather than leaving interpretation to a memorandum or statements from the Dispatch Box which have absolutely no bearing on any judicial determination.

Mr. Lloyd: Perhaps I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's case. It seems from the wording of the new clause that it would override, or be in conflict with, clause 1(5). If it would not, and is merely asserting that on anything other than discretionary matters, the conduct of the Governor's responsibilities under the Bill and the Orders in Council will be a subject of judicial review, there is little between us.

Mr. Darling: Discretionary decisions are not subject to judicial review anywhere so long as the person exercising

the discretion carries out his normal duties in reaching the decision. There is no difference between us on that. The new clause would do exactly the same as section 44(3) of the 1981 Act. It would make it clear beyond doubt, so that no judge would have any difficulty with the point, that it is not intended to exclude the possibility of judicial review where the circumstances warranted it. That is the only difference between us. New clause 2 follows the pattern of the 1981 Act.
I accept that ministerial discretion cannot normally be subject to judicial review unless the Minister considers matters which he has no business to consider or fails to look at all the matters at which he should look. That is well settled. I see no difficulty about that. I read the Minister's letter and explanatory memorandum, and there is a difference between us. I am not convinced by them, which is why I am introducing the new clause.

Mr. Maclennan: The trouble is that the new clause does not follow the language of the 1981 Act but goes wider. The 1981 Act deals with rights, whereas the new clause deals with the operation of any provisions of the Bill. That would have the effect of repealing the effectiveness of clause 1(5), which is why I asked whether that was the hon. Gentleman's intention.

Mr. Darling: I must have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's earlier intervention. For the avoidance of doubt, may I say that the effect of the new clause would be to qualify clause 1(5) to make it clear that clause 1(5) would not fetter the discretion of the court to review any decisions made under the Act, as it will become. I am willing to negotiate on the words and the exact language, but I fear that that is not the difficulty. The Government do not like the intention behind the new clause. This is not a grammatical argument so much as one of substance.

Mr. Adley: To resolve the misunderstanding between the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), may I suggest that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central might like to look at the four amendments which I have tabled which attempt to achieve the same objective as his new clause, but do so more simply by deleting the last sentence of the clause? If the hon. Gentleman would like to take over my amendments, I am happy to let him do so.

Mr. Darling: Exactly that approach was adopted by the Opposition in Committee. We tried another way of achieving the same result. The hon. Gentleman will know that there are certain restrictions on us on Report, and it was necessary to make certain adjustments to accommodate other matters. With respect, I do not think that that is the problem. The problem is that the Government do not like the idea. I dare say that, when the Minister replies, the hon. Gentleman's suggestions will receive no more encouragement than my new clause.

Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Darling: May I progress a little? I do not want to get bogged down—

Mr. Marlow: I confess that I am not a lawyer and am not au fait with what judicial review is, what the courts can do and so on. Will the hon. Gentleman answer a clear question? If a Hong Kong citizen sought a passport through the quota system and was aggrieved at not


obtaining one as a result of administrative discretion, would the hon. Gentleman's amendment allow him to take the matter before the courts?

Mr. Darling: Only if the aggrieved person could show that the person who exercised discretion had considered matters that he should not have considered or took into account extraneous considerations. If the person who exercises discretion, the Governor, followed the points system and allocated the points in exactly the way in which he was supposed to do under the scheme, there could be no appeal. The appeal would come into play only if the aggrieved person could show that the Governor had, for example, taken into account something that had nothing to do with the case. Under the Bill or any other provision, he is not empowered to take into account extraneous factors.
The new clause would not have the effect of granting a common right of appeal. There is nothing new about judicial review. It is a well established branch of the law of this country and, indeed, many others. It is a narrow mechanism that enables courts to put right administrative decisions where things have gone wrong or the administrator has done something that he was not entitled to do. If anyone thinks that judicial review is a mechanism simply to have a case heard anew or considered by someone else, he or she will be disappointed. That is not the intention.
I have outlined the intention of the new clause as comprehensively as possible. I think and hope that I have demonstrated the need for it. Whatever other drawbacks the Bill may have, it is essential that the mechanisms that it sets up are subject to review. If the difference between us and the Government had been one of language or the exact words used, I should be more than happy to come and go. However, that is not the difficulty.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I am sorry to keep interrupting. I want to understand what he is getting at because I feel that there is not a great distance between us. I have reflected on what he said to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). He appears to believe that any discretionary act of a Minister or public official is not subject to judicial review in the normal way. My understanding is that any act is subject to judicial review, discretionary of otherwise, unless it is specifically excluded, as in clause 1(5). The new clause appears to contradict clause 1(5) on discretionary decisions. If the hon. Gentleman does not intend that the new clause should apply to discretionary decisions, I could not accept it, no matter how willing I were, because it would conflict with what he seems happy to keep in the Bill. We appear to differ on the status of a discretionary decision when there is no specific exclusion of its consideration by a court in the relevant legislation.

Mr. Darling: My new clause would not contradict clause 1(5). It is a qualification of it or addition to it. It makes it clear that nothing in the Bill precludes the possibility of courts judicially reviewing decisions. I made it clear in response to an earlier—[Interruption.] I shall deal with that point later. It is difficult to deal with points made from a sedentary position, but I shall do my best.
My new clause is an addition to clause 1(5). As I said, it has the same effect as that of section 44(3) of the 1981 Act. The new clause makes it clear that, no matter what is said at an earlier stage, nothing will prevent a court from considering the proceedings. The new clause is an addition to clause 1(5); it take nothing away from it. The mischief that it seeks to correct is that, as I read it, clause 1(5) would exclude judicial review. I know that the Minister takes a different view on that. The object of the exercise is to make it clear that courts can judicially review the proceedings.
In Committee, we tried several other approaches. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that he does not understand and that he is willing to come and go. I rather suspect that he does not want the possibility of review. If I am wrong on that, I invite him to demonstrate to the House how it would be possible under the terms of the clause to carry out judicial review of any decision made under it.
My new clause is a safeguard and an addition to the Bill. It would be beneficial to the Bill as a whole because it would make it possible beyond peradventure to raise the matter later in court if there were any doubt in a preliminary court. If that is not possible, it will cause great dissatisfaction as well as great injustice.
In conclusion—

Sir Alan Glyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Darling: I really should conclude, but since the hon. Gentleman has now got to his feet, I shall give way to him.

Sir Alan Glyn: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to appeals on a point of law, on a point of fact, or both?

Mr. Darling: Judicial review is not a point of law as such. It is exercised simply to consider as a matter of fact whether the Governor took into account the matters that he should have considered or—as I have said many times now—matters which he should not have considered. It is fairly straightforward. It is a safeguard and an addition to the Bill.
In conclusion—this time I mean it, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I should have no objection if the Minister accepted the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), because I attempted exactly the same exercise in Committee. However, I fear that the hon. Member for Christchurch may be unsuccessful.

Mr. Adley: After the battle of Britain, Winston Churchill said,
Never has so much been owed by so many to so few.
I must say to my hon. Friend the Minister, with whom I have had a long, friendly and courteous relationship, that as a result of the brevity of his response to the debate on new clause 12, never in a parliamentary debate has so little been said so quickly to so many. It is unfortunate that, as he implied, he has been left to pick up the bits of what we might call the Foreign Office end of the debate. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude), was not here at the beginning of the previous debate and he is not here now. I hope that some of the points that were made will be considered by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department does not reply to them.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said in his discussion with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), we are in danger of creating a lawyers' paradise. As amendments Nos. 37 to 40 have been selected, if the Opposition would prefer to use them as a vehicle at the end of the debate, I shall be happy for them so to do.
It might be for the convenience of the House if I read out clause 1(5) both as currently drafted and as it would be amended. As it is drafted, it says:
Neither the Secretary of State nor the Governor shall be required to give any reason for any decision made by him in the exercise of a discretion vested in him by or under this Act and no such decision shall be subject to appeal or liable to be questioned in any court.
That is somewhat draconian.
My four amendments, Nos, 37 to 40, would amend that subsection to read as follows:
The Secretary of State or the Governor shall be required to give reasons for any decision made by him in the exercise of a discretion vested in him by or under the Act.
That seems nothing more than natural justice. Regardless of what might be thought of the Bill, anyone reading the clause would, I am sure, regard the inclusion in the Bill of the words currently printed to be a denial of natural justice.
New clause 8, which was not selected, states:
The Governor of Hong Kong may, at his discretion, withdraw all or any rights to passport entitlements granted under this Act, and in so doing shall state his reasons.
That was an attempt to put a negative as well as a positive power in the hands of, ultimately, the Government should
we wish to reverse any decision if we find that passports have been granted to people who subsequently turn out to be drug dealers, murderers, child molesters, Triad organisers—or heavens knows what. As those people would already have their entitlement to a British passport, that is a situation in which prevention is certainly better than cure.
Finally, I hope that the proposition contained in subsection 5 will not become the custom of this or any Government. Perhaps it should have been included in the Local Government Finance Act 1988 where it would have been a powerful weapon in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. It was not, and we understand why. Surely if one is considering the relative importance of people's rights as against the poll tax, we should agree in Parliament that people's rights are more important. It is in the spirit of protecting individuals' rights that I move my amendments.

Mr. Maclennan: The debate has become somewhat arcane with its discussion of the alternative language that might be used to ensure that judicial review is open to those who feel aggrieved. However, the principle that underlies the range of amendments that have been grouped together, including my amendment No. 49, is extremely important.
The right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), whose amendment No. 18 is in this group, is proposing to establish a right of appeal and seems to be seeking to introduce a system of review that goes far beyond that of judicial review and would nullify the operation of the scheme that the Government have in mind because it would so protract it that the speedy resolution of cases

would become almost impossible. Any benefit that might flow from the implementation of the scheme would thereby be frittered away.
That is why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I doubt whether a full appeal system is possible. I am fortified in that view by representations that we have received from Hong Kong, all of which suggested that if the scheme is to have the effect that the Government would wish, which is to restore confidence to the commercial community and to stop the haemorrhage from Hong Kong of important and significant citizens, it must be up and running quickly. Therefore, I treat the right hon. Gentleman's amendment as essentially a wrecking one.
However, the arguments about the alternative approaches, which seek to allow and to secure some form of judicial review by amending the Bill, are of a different order. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said, they are intended to be constructive and to ensure that grievances that may perfectly understandably arise about the operation of the scheme are removed by reference to the courts for judicial review.
From the beginning of this discussion in Committee, the Minister has said that the Government's view is that judicial review is available to an aggrieved person except where clause 1(5) rules it out—that is, where the Secretary of State or the Governor are acting in the pursuance of their discretion and where the matter relates to a decision that was taken in their exercise of that discretion. I understand why the Minister wishes to exclude those discretionary decisions from judicial review.
The consequence of the alternatives would be to substitute the judgment of the court in the place of that of the Governor or the Secretary of State. I cannot think that that would make sense. If there is an element of discretion in the scheme—that is certainly the case—however detailed the points system may be, it will always be necessary to choose between people who have the same number of points. That cannot be handled satisfactorily by a court; it must be handled by a member of the Government who is accountable to Parliament for the exercise of that discretion.
6.45 pm
Where I have fallen out previously with the Minister—and where I apprehend that I may disagree with him today—is in his belief that there is no scope for specifying a right to judicial review. What the Minister has said about that in debates and in letters has not altered my judgment that the British Nationality Act 1981 was right to secure the right to judicial review in respect of rights conferred by the Act. That is explicit in section 44(3) of the 1981 Act.
The Minister has sought to distinguish between the 1981 Act and this Bill by saying that the Bill confers no rights, but I submit that it does. It confers a right upon those who are subject to schemes to have their cases properly procedurally handled. I do not believe that the Minister can deny that. Insofar as people have those rights, I believe that they should be entitled to judicial review to ensure that their rights are properly protected.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: On the whole, the Bill does not create rights in the way that the 1981 Act did. But it certainly lays duties on the Secretary of State and the Governor which, under the Bill when it becomes and Act and the Orders in Council that will follow, could be the occasion of judicial


review if any applicant felt that the Governor or the Secretary of State had not proceeded as they should under the requirements of this Bill.

Mr. Maclennan: The Minister is narrowing the difference between us. In what I think he will have to admit is a somewhat imprecise way, he is saying that the Bill does not confer many rights. But the very rights that it does confer will give rise to grievances which should be remediable by access to the courts.
I think that the Minister is saying that those who are aggrieved have that right and if he believes that they have that right. I cannot understand his steadfast opposition to securing that right in a clause which would run parallel to section 44(3) of the 1981 Act. That must raise questions about whether the Minister believes that clause 1(5), which puts an impediment in the way of judicial review of the discretionary power, could be invoked to stop judicial review in other cases. That matter is sufficiently in doubt to make it important to have the provisions contained in amendment No. 49.
I do not go along with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central. His amendment, which is not couched in the language of the 1981 Act, goes too far in overturning the effect of excluding discretions from judicial review. I have sympathy with the amendment, but it goes further than I consider to be appropriate. I think that it would transfer responsibility for taking discretionary decisions from the Governor and the Secretary of State to the courts. That cannot he an acceptable objective.

Mr. Marlow: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill seeks to confer passports on citizens of Hong Kong. Those who have had that benefit will have the right for their children to be accorded passports. There may be some controversy between those issuing passports and parents over which children are entitled to passports. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the decision to exclude or include a particular child should be made by the courts?

Mr. Maclennan: I am suggesting that in the exercise of the judgments made by the Governor and the Secretary of State and the procedural rule that will be followed in making assessments, issues such as the one raised by the hon. Gentleman should be open to review. It will be a question of whether the procedures have been properly followed. Did the Secretary of State address himself to the proper questions? Did the Governor do so or did he fail to carry out his duty?
It has been said by some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), that it is a constitutional monstrosity to suggest that there is an obligation upon the Secretary of State to register those whom the Governor recommends. It seems that a duty is being imposed upon him. It seems also that the procedure confers a right upon those whose names are put forward to be registered save in the circumstance that the Secretary of State takes the view that they are not of proper character. That is the effect of clause 5.
If there is that right to be registered, we are talking of a major right, not a minor procedural matter. It would seem that the Bill is conferring a major right. If that right is subject to judicial review, that meets all the legitimate demands that anyone could have for reconsideration of a mistake, if mistake there has been, without opening up the

full panoply of an appeal system with all the possibilities of delay that that could involve and the rendering nugatory of the effectiveness of the scheme.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman and I have crossed swords on this issue in a previous debate. Clause 5(2) states:
A person shall not … be recommended for registration as a British citizen by the Governor of Hong Kong or … by the Secretary of State if the Governor or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State has reason to believe that he is not of good character.
Where does that dividing line come down? Who should decide, the Governor or the Secretary of State? How does that affect the hon. Gentleman's view of judicial review?

Mr. Maclennan: With respect, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's question is germane to the argument about judicial review. Accordingly, I do not propose to take up the matter.
I may have conveyed to the Minister what it is that I am seeking to achieve. I hope that I have placed upon him the onus of explaining why the Government are reluctant—they have suggested so far that they are opposed to this—to repeat the language of the 1981 Act, which provides a safeguard for people who are aggrieved because there has been some intromission, oversight, error or misdirection by those responsible for the operation of the scheme.

Mr. Tebbit: I wish to speak to amendment No. 18, about which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), was so scathing. It is extraordinary that a member of the party which was once called the Liberal party should oppose in principle giving people the right of appeal on the basis that that would be a bureaucratic impediment to the swift progress of granting British nationality.
I find it extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman is so bigoted and partisan as to believe that merely because an amendment gives a right of appeal it must be a wrecking amendment. There could be no better illustration of the manner in which the hon. Gentleman's mind is closed like a clam to any idea that does not originate from Opposition Members. That means that he has a remarkably closed mind to any ideas because so few originate from those who sit around him. There is increasing lonelines on the Bench on which he sits.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland ruminated on why the Government were so reluctant to accept the amendments which he has proposed, those which I proposed and not dissimilar amendments which were tabled and introduced in Committee. I can tell him why the Government are reluctant to do so. The answer is easy to understand. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary does not like this business at all. He wishes that it had never got anywhere near his desk. He has a marked revulsion for the whole darned business. He knows that it is a can of worms and he does not want it to get anywhere near him or his office. He wants to keep it all offshore.
This is one of the first instances where the granting of nationality has been made an offshore operation. The Home Secretary wants to keep the business in Hong Kong. He is pretty darned sure that some nasty and unfortunate things will happen, and the last thing that he wants is to find that he is responsible for them.
It is against that background that we are being asked how the Home Secretary will possibly kno better than


the Governor. How, it is said, could the Home Secretary decide anything here except on evidence which had come to him from Hong Kong? It is argued that that would be the same evidence as that which had been presented to the Governor, and that the Home Secretary would merely be churning out the same old stuff. That would be fine if the Governor were responsible to the House, but there is a pretty thick layer between the House, the Governor and those who will be operating the scheme.
I think that Hong Kong is a marvellous place. It is a terrific, successful place, but I doubt whether anyone would be able to maintain that it is the one place in the world where the ethics of business stand out as being more reputable than those anywhere else in the world.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Do not tell us about that.

Mr. Tebbit: It seems that the hon. Gentleman wants to start a debate about other issues. Perhaps they include the way in which Lord Beswick piloted a nationalisation Bill through Parliament and then got a job. I shall not be tempted down that road.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tebbit: I would greatly enjoy such a debate on another day, because there is much ammunition to be used, and I would have great delight in using some of it. But we are not discussing those issues and I do not want unnaturally to extend the debate. We should focus clearly and firmly on the matters that are under discussion.
The principal issue in this debate is whether someone who is granted the right to apply for registration as a British citizen under the Bill should have a right to appeal to someone who is directly responsible to this Parliament, which has accorded the right. That is the argument. We are not arguing that the Home Secretary should deal with all the applications himself. Clearly, most aggrieved people would accept that they had not scored on the points standard of the Bill, according to what we assume will be the way in which it is operated.
I tabled an amendment—unfortunately, it was not accepted—that would have clarified the criteria by taking the Government's own words from their explanatory memorandum and including them in the Bill. I cannot see why the Government do not want to incorporate their views in their legislation. Obviously they do not really approve of them.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Perhaps my right hon. Friend should consult my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who explained—when my right hon. Friend was out of the Chamber—that we needed an annual report from the Governor on the facts and progress of the scheme—in case we wanted to change it. Only through delegated legislation in Orders in Council could we do that.

7 pm

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is completely wrong. He is saying that it would be more convenient legislatively to change the scheme by means of Orders in Council than to do so through primary legislation. That is not an absolute problem; it just takes more time.
As I know very well, Governments do not like to arrange such debates in prime parliamentary time. They would prefer the whole issue to be swept under the carpet in future, so that we did not have to debate it again. Apart from anything else, it is an extremely divisive issue in the Conservative party. Conservative Back Benchers do not support the Bill; nor, in their heart of hearts do Front Benchers, although they may do so in the Lobbies. It certainly does not have the support of those who voted for us at the general election on the clear understanding that no such legislation would be presented.
I am not too bothered by my hon. Friend's objections. If the Government ase to break electoral commitments, they should do so in public, so that the electors know that undertakings have been breached. An even more puzzling question is whether my hon. Friend has any better reason than was given in Committee for not giving the right of appeal. I accept that the Bill should contain the extraordinary little clause that effectively seeks to exclude the courts from any review of their operations: some Conservative Members do not want the courts to be involved, as it would raise too many issues about how British citizenship and passports are handed out. Surely, however, my hon. Friends will not say that in no circumstances should a citizen in Hong Kong have any right to come to a Minister directly responsible to Parliament with an appeal against what has been done.

Mr. Marlow: As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, one of the great departures of the Bill is the offshore award of British citizenship. The person awarding that citizenship will effectively be the Governor of Hong Kong. I understand that my right hon. Friend's amendment hopes to give that final power on appeal back to the people who have been democratically elected to represent the people of this country—hon. Members.

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not the Governor's legislation, but the Secretary of State's legislation: it is the legislation of the House of Commons. At the end of the day, it is to the House, through the Secretary of State, that the appeal should be made. How can it be held that the Secretary of State, having put into commission the granting of citizenship—surely one of the most important acts to be conducted by a Government—could then wash his hands of it, and say that he does not want to know and that he will intervene only if citizenship is granted to someone who he believes is not of a fit or proper character?
If someone applies to be registered for British citizenship and is refused, and someone else's application is preferred—perhaps in breach of the rules—will the Secretary of State still say that he does not want to know? Will he say that it is too difficult, and that he does not want to accept responsibility for it?

Mr. Peter Lloyd: rose—

Mr. Tebbit: Perhaps the Minister is going to say that he does want the responsibility.

Mr. Lloyd: If a selection were made in breach of the rules, it would be a matter for judicial review, and there would be access to the courts, as I pointed out to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). I do not think that my right hon. Friend was in the Chamber at the


time. If he has read the Committee proceedings—as he said he has—he will know that that was made clear several times.

Mr. Tebbit: Within the rules there is enormous discretion. If the Minister reads the rules of the memorandum that I sought to include in the Bill, he will see that not everything is cut and dried.
Who will decide whether one business man is more successful and entrepreneurial than another? Is there a set of rules, or will a subjective judgment be made? Will a business man who has made £50 million starting from £500,000 be good enough to get in, whereas someone who has made only £25 million starting from £1 million will not be? Obviously, the decision will be discretionary, judgmental and subjective.
If the decision is to be based on someone's judgment, should it be that of a Minister of the Crown or that of a civil servant in Hong Kong? Is my hon. Friend saying that that subjective judgment should be exercised by someone who is not directly responsible to the House?

Mr. Peter Lloyd: The judgment will be based on the value of the individual to Hong Kong. In those circumstances, who better to make that judgment than the Governor of Hong Kong, acting within the rules laid down by the House?
My right hon. Friend has slid off the point that I answered. He referred to a breach of the rules laid down by the House; I said that, in those circumstances, a judicial review would be available, and I hope that he will accept that.

Mr. Tebbit: I will accept that, if it can be established that a decision is in breach of the rules. A judicial review is not the cheapest or the easiest way to bring proceedings. Why not offer a cheaper and easier form of appeal?
My hon. Friend the Minister also conceded my point that in many cases passports will be granted on no more than the view of a group of people as to who are the most valuable citizens in Hong Kong.
Let us imagine what would be said in the House if we proposed to operate such a system here, judging people on the basis of their value to the economy. An official who was not even a Minister could decide to front an invaluable privilege. There would be no right of appeal: a person could not go to judicial review and say that the Governor had made a wrong assessment of his value to the economy of Hong Kong. He will have no right of appeal. The Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary of State say, "Hard luck. Much better that that sort of mess is kept out of our office and is kept over there in Hong Kong. We give up responsibility and we deny any responsibility to the House of Commons."

Mr. Wells: Has my right hon. Friend read the key entrepreneur section which says:
The Governor would invite those whom he considered might be qualified under this scheme to submit an application".
It is entirely in the Governor's right to decide that. If an aggrieved person believed that the Goverment had not exercised that judgment correctly, there would be no question of judicial review. A small cabal—the elite who rule Hong Kong—would decide who should have British citizenship; citizenship which belongs to Britain through the House.

Mr. Tebbit: As my hon. Friend says, that is how it would operate. We all know that, wherever there is a ruling commercial elite who like to have things their own way, there are outsiders. If one went to the CBI and asked who were the deserving entrepreneurs in the United Kingdom, it would probably omit from its list a great many people who would feel that they had been wrongfully omitted. The CBI would upset a lot of people. Any establishment will do that.
We are well aware of the way in which the ranks close in establishments if somebody should be so unwise as to criticise it—[Interruption.] I hasten to say that I speak from no experience of such things, but I have heard that it happens now and again. I have even heard that it happens to hon. Members who have committed such a terrible offence as working for Mr. Rupert Murdoch. They get slung off the Opposition Front Bench for doing so. That is the sort of way in which people can upset the establishment.

Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassettlaw): The right hon. Gentleman will never be Sir Norman now.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman should be careful. He may never reach the Front Bench the way he is carrying on.

Mr. Ashton: I have been on it and come off it.

Mr. Tebbit: Indeed.
The serious point that I am making is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) said, that to get on to that key entrepreneurs list a person's face must fit with the establishment of Hong Kong, not with the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] One of my more vulgar Back-Bench colleagues whom I shall not name says, "or his cheque book". Perish the thought that such a thing could happen in a place like Hong Kong. The idea that people might be able to buy a passport in Hong Kong is outrageous. I am amazed that one of my colleagues could suggest it. I would not have been surprised if such a suggestion had come from the vulgar mob on the Opposition Benches, but for one of my hon. Friends to suggest it—that might be getting somewhere near the truth of the matter. It just might be that there are people in Hong Kong, perfectly successful and honest men, who would deserve the award of citizenship, whose faces do not fit. What will they do?

Mr. Peter Lloyd: rose—

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is eager to tell me.

Mr. Lloyd: What the key entrepreneurs will have to do is to meet the criteria that will be laid down by the House in the Order in Council.

Mr. Tebbit: I have been in the business of drawing up legislation for long enough not to fall for that guff.

Sir Peter Blaker: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not want to mislead the House. I do not know whether he has recently looked at the section on the key entrepreneur. He is giving the impression that only those key entrepreneurs who are invited by the Governor to make an application will be eligible, but that is plainly not true. The document says:
It would be open to others who wished to be considered in this category to indicate their interest on an application


form … Other potential recipients who did not take that initiative might be identified from information set out on their forms when they applied".
May we have the whole picture, not just part of it?

Mr. Tebbit: I am sure that that is right. If the National Front were to advertise for an administrative officer, it would probably put at the bottom of the page that it was an equal opportunities employer. We can believe that if we wish. It does not matter whether a person is invited to apply by the Governor or not. His face has to fit. If it does not fit well enough to receive an invitation, I doubt whether it would fit well enough to win on an application without an invitation.
Even if we were to believe that on 99 occasions out of 100 all would go well, we must concede that there is a possibility—not even a probability—that there would be a miscarriage of justice. We know that there would be no appeal against that and no way in which the consequences of how the legislation is drawn up could arrive on the desk of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I do not blame my right hon. Friend for taking that view. If I were the Home Secretary with this dog's dinner of a Bill, I would be taking the same view. I would want to keep it offshore if I could.

Mr. Marlow: In a previous intervention, my hon. Friend the Minister said that the measure is about providing citizenship for people in Hong Kong so that they might be constrained to stay in Hong Kong. But I put it to my right hon. Friend that what we are doing is providing people with British citizenship. In that case, is it right that the Secretary of State should have no influence on whether there should be an appeal?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend makes the essential point. I cannot imagine why the official Opposition are so willing to let the Government get away with it. However, there is sometimes a conspiracy between the Front Benches. It is not unknown. Even when the Opposition Front Bench team opposes legislation, it may not oppose it enough to stop it getting through. It may oppose it only for show, so that it can say that it opposed it, but at the same time let it through.
I am amazed that the Opposition, including the so-called Liberals, bitterly oppose, in the way that they seem to, granting a right of appeal to the Home Secretary on the issue of British citizenship. It is amazing that they are content to leave that in the hands of the Governor of Hong Kong and his officials.

Mr. Maclennan: The right hon. Gentleman's concern for the injustices of the Bill would carry much greater weight if he had a scheme to offer hope to those who will be threatened in 1997 by an oppressive Government in Peking, the responsibility for whom, if his policies were carried out, he would wash his hands of. The British Government would simply turn their back. He has shown no willingness to support the Liberal Democrats' policy that those who have been granted British dependent territories citizen passports should be entitled as of right to come to Britain, in which case there would be none of these review procedures.

Mr. Tebbit: I have made no secret of the fact that I oppose the Bill on two grounds. First, it is a breach of the Government's commitment not to allow further large-scale immigration into Britain. The first obligation of a Member of Parliament is to his constituents here. That is the prime obligation.

Mr. Rogers: Why does the right hon. Gentleman take other jobs, then?

Mr. Tebbit: For exactly the same reason as the deputy leader of the Labour party takes other jobs. If hon. Members want to come to my constituency and tell my constituents that I have not been looking after their interests, they will have to explain why my majority has risen from 4,000 to 18,000 in the past 10 years. That may be the view of ignorant people, but it is not the view of the people whom I look after.
Let us return to the point made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland. The second reason why I oppose the Bill is also the reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch opposes it: it will not benefit the people of Hong Kong. It will not make matters better there but will make them worse. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland may take a different view from me, but he should not imply that having a different view from him is a matter of dishonour, because experience has shown that it is not.
Has my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary got any better explanation than the one he put forward in Committee, as to why the House should allow the Home Secretary—I am not speaking of my right hon. and learned Friend personally but of his office—to shuffle off the obligation and thus ensure that the responsibility will never come back to land on his desk, once the House has given its consent to the Bill?

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am afraid that I shall have to spend a little more time replying to this debate than I did to the last one as it is important and there are genuine misunderstandings and worries on the issue.
In Committee we spent a good deal of time discussing how decisions taken under the Bill might be reviewed. Clearly that was a matter of genuine concern, and I appreciate how strongly the hon. Members for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) and for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) felt about it, and I also find, to my interest, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) is numbered among those who are concerned.
In Committee, and in letters which I sent afterwards, I sought to explain the background to clause 1(5) and the extent of its effect. Therefore, I wrote to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central remarked, setting out the sort of decision which the Government thought that the courts would be likely to regard as reviewable and those which seemed likely not be reviewable as a result of clause 1(5). I must point out again to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central that new clause 2 would contradict clause 1(5) and could not sit alongside it in the same Bill.
As I made clear in Committee, ultimately it will be not for the Governor or for the Home Secretary but for the courts to decide what is reviewable, having regard to the provisions of the legislation. I wrote to the hon. Member


for Caithness and Sutherland about the case of a person seeking registration as a spouse under schedule 2 who was rejected on grounds of ineligibility.
Let me emphasise once again what I said in Committee. The exemptions in clause 1(5) from having to give reasons and from appeal and judicial review relate only to discretionary decisions. It is in the nature of such decisions that they often involve the exercise of judgment about matters which might be finely balanced, and where there might be no clear right or wrong answer. If I understood correctly the hon. Members for Edinburgh, Central and for Caithness and Sutherland, they had no argument with me or with the Government on that score; their argument is about how we present the matter in the Bill.

Mr. Darling: I am not sure that that accurately represents our view. I said that I thought that there were circumstances in which ministerial discretion could be challenged by involving judicial review under the present law. I make no bones about it: my new clause would qualify clause 1(5) so that, if it were appropriate to do so, and if an aggrieved person had grounds to do so, he or she could challenge such discretion. on occasion the Minister might purport to use discretion but consider matters that he had no business to consider for any reason. I am glad that the Minister has said clearly that clause 1(5) would make such a discretionary decision unchallengeable, no matter now manifestly unjust it was.

Mr. Lloyd: The court would decide whether it was a matter of discretion. I think that in the examples that the hon. Gentleman was trying to think of, and was alluding to earlier, it would be a question of the circumstances in which discretion was applied rather than a question of discretion. The courts will have to determine whether that is a matter for them to review or not. There is nothing in clause 1(5) which provides for discretionary decisions because the intention and effect of the clause are similar to a provision which has formed part of our nationality law for the past 40 years. It is included in black and white, in section 26 of the British Nationality Act 1948, and more recently in section 44(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981. Therefore, the amendments would depart from a principle that has been a long-standing feature of nationality law under successive Governments.
The need for exemption is particularly pressing in this Bill because of the competitive nature of the scheme, which has a ceiling of 50,000 places, and because of the expected high proportion of unsuccessful applications.
If a person felt that a discretionary decision had deprived him of selection, often the decision could be meaningfully reviewed only if the courts also considered the relative claims of other people with whom the applicant had been competing. That would not be practicable. Even if it was, it would result merely in the substitution of one opinion for another. That must be the case when it is not simply a question of getting enough points to reach a pass mark which entitles people to British citizenship. It is a question of getting more points than other people. By securing a place, a person will deny that place to someone else. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland recognised that that was so.

Mr. Adley: I heard what my hon. Friend said about those sections of existing immigration law which contain phrases or clauses similar to clause 1(5). Does he accept that in those instances British Ministers are answerable to

Members of Parliament? What similar fallback position does he envisage for individuals in Hong Kong? Are he and his ministerial colleagues at the Home Office prepared to countenance hon. Members taking up cases brought to their attention with Ministers here in the same way that we mention cases involving our constituents?

Mr. Lloyd: The Home Secretary is not answerable for matters of discretion under nationality law. He makes his decision on the information available, and he is required to give no reasons. Obviously he would listen and receive letters dealing with the cases of people who might have applied for British citizenship, but there is no obligation on him to give reasons for his decision. That is absolutely clear under the present legislation. The Bill requires that the final granting of British citizenship belongs to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and he would have to satisfy himself of the suitability of the applicant to be a British citizen. For that reason, there will be Home Office officials in Hong Kong to consider the recommendations made by the Governor to ensure that they are suitable people on whose behalf my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary should exercise the discretion which remains with him.

Mr. Marlow: As has been said from a sedentary position, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would have a negative power. If the Governor were to say to him, "Thou shalt have a certain person as a British citizen," and my right hon. and learned Friend had information that that person would be unsuitable for the United Kingdom, then, as we have discussed before. he would be able to say that the person could not come into the country. But let us suppose that someone who was eminently suitable for citizenship but who for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford—cliques and cabals in Hong Kong—was not allocated one of the 50,000 British citizenships contacted an hon. Member, who then got in touch with the Home Secretary. In those circumstances, what would my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary be able to do about it, given the way that the Bill is drafted?

Mr. Lloyd: There are many people in Hong Kong who are suitable in that sense to be British citizens. However, the selection scheme that the House will eventually provide will be the means by which the Governor will choose those people who, because of their value to Hong Kong, as well as being eminently suitable to be British citizens, will be included among the 50,000.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: During my visit to Hong Kong, I heard two different views about the position if individuals wanted to appeal. I was told by a civil servant that every individual had the right to petition the Governor personally. When I asked the Governor about that, he was less inclined to accept that that was an appeal route. Do people have the right to petition the Governor under the existing rules? If they have that right, should the Governor not be required to provide reasons for his refusal?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not know the details. I believe that there is a tradition whereby people can approach the Governor, but it is no substitute for the kind of appeal system that the hon. Gentleman may have in mind. The


objective process, as provided for in the Bill, will be laid down in Orders in Council. The Governor will have much less discretion than is assumed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford.

Mr. Madden: I accept that the Secretary of State will not be obliged to give reasons for his refusal to grant British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1981, but the custom and practice over some years has been that when hon. Members, or those in another place, made representations to the Secretary of State and asked for explanations as to why an application had been refused the Secretary of State offered an explanation that enabled hon. Members to make further inquiries. Will that practice not continue under the new legislation?

Mr. Lloyd: On some occasions my right hon. and learned Friend has done that; on other occasions he has not. He has the discretion to decide whether it would be right for him to give information. My right hon. and learned Friend always tries to be as helpful as he possibly can. When reaching his conclusion, he would seek to take into account any representations that were made to him. We are talking, however, about giving reasons and explanations. Home Secretaries in successive Governments have frequently not done so; their judgment in particular cases was that it would not be helpful.
Arguments similar to those that I have advanced relating to appeals apply to the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley): that the Governor or the Secretary of State should be required to give the reasons for a discretionary decision. Given the large number of decisions that will need to be taken about the detailed criteria for the scheme—for example, about the weight, in terms of points, to be given to different qualifications—a requirement to give reasons in all cases would be extraordinarily difficult to work and would not be very meaningful unless one knew what the reasons were in every other case.
This is a competitive exercise. I have stressed that the exemption in clause 1 will apply only to discretionary decisions. Anyone who reads the clause will see that it applies only to discretionary decisions. All other aspects of the selection and registration process will fall outside the scope of the exemption and, therefore, will be within the purview of the courts.
The inclusion of a provision in the Bill stating that explicitly is unnecessary. I know, however, that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland feels passionately about the matter. As I promised in Committee, I have thought long and hard about including words to reassure him. I do not believe that it is good practice to overload legislation with redundant clauses, but in this case I should have been willing to do so if it would have had no other effect than to make the Bill slightly longer. I am afraid, however, that I had to conclude not merely that the addition would be unnecessary but that it would be undesirable as it could raise doubts about the powers of the courts in relation to other statutes.
There is no better illustration of that than the hon. Gentleman's deep concern and the anxieties that have been expressed both this evening and in Committee, which spring from the fact that the words of the hon. Gentleman's amendment, which he wishes to be inserted in

the Bill, already appear in the 1981 Act. The inclusion of section 44(3) in the 1981 Act—of doubtful necessity even then—has led some right hon. and hon. Members to assume that the courts cannot review actions taken under the statute unless the statute specifically allows them to do so. The House should not perpetuate that assumption, as it would if it were to accept the amendment. Should we continue to do that from time to time in new legislation—to reassure a particularly forceful hon. Member when he expresses a fiercely held worry—we would begin to raise doubts as to the extent of the courts' competence to review cases without specific legislative authority.

Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the Minister for the detailed way in which he is seeking to answer my point. Does he believe, however, that the presence of section 44(3) in the British Nationality Act 1981 leads to doubt about whether judicial review exists? It was included in the Act for the avoidance of doubt. It should be included in this Bill for the same reason.

Mr. Lloyd: To be fair, section 44(3) of the 1981 Act was drafted a decade ago, when this area of the law was less well developed than it is now. The courts are vigorous in asserting their right to review decisions taken by public bodies under powers conferred by Act of Parliament. To include similar words in this Bill would not help. They would add to the damage that the appearance of those words in the 1981 Act has retrospectively caused. I do not want that area of doubt to continue.
The fact that the hon. Gentleman is doubtful and believes that without those words there can be no judicial review leads me to point out to him that there are myriad other Acts on the statute book of which the same could be said; they are no different. There can be a judicial review under these Acts just as, under this Bill, there is the possibility of judicial review, without the words that the hon. Gentleman wants to include. If from time to time we were to include those words in various Acts, it would be possible to argue that if another Act did not contain them it was not intended by Parliament that there should be judicial review.
The fact that judicial review is available is demonstrated by the Immigration Act 1971–10 years before the British Nationality Act 1981—under which hundreds of challenges by way of judicial review are made every year, even though the Act contains no express provision that confers jurisdiction on the courts to consider such challenges. In the case of the Bill, that includes all aspects of its operation, except those discretionary decisions which clause 1(5) explicitly exempts.

Mr. Tebbit: Will my hon. Friend make it clear whether or not there will be the possibility of judicial review arising out of a decision by the Governor within the key entrepreneurs section, were someone to believe that, although he was a key entrepreneur in the top 500, he had not been selected?

Mr. Lloyd: That will be a matter for the courts to determine. I believe that that possibility would not arise, unless the individual could show that the criteria laid down by the House had not been followed. The Governor is required to abide by the rules that we lay down, both in this Bill and, more particularly in the case of the selection scheme, in Orders in Council.

Mr. Tebbit: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the intention of the legislation is that there should not be judicial review of the Governor's decision as to whether or not a man is one of the top 500 entrepreneurs in Hong Kong? Is that right?

Mr. Lloyd: Where there are elements of discretion that belong either to the Governor or to the Secretary of State, the intention is that that should not be a matter of judicial review. However, both the Governor and the Home Secretary are under a duty to abide by the law that is laid down in the Bill, if it becomes an Act, and by the rules and regulations that will appear in Orders in Council. It would be for the courts to decide whether the House had given an element of discretion to the Governor, or whether he had not followed the procedures laid down by the House.

Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he is being very helpful. He is describing how it is not the intention of the Government to allow judicial review. The Bill is constructed in a way that is deliberately designed to limit or exclude the courts. My hon. Friend says that the only occasion on which judicial review could arise is where it could be shown that the Governor had not complied with the criteria set down in the legislation.
We cannot yet know what the legislation will look like, but if right hon. and hon. Members will refer to page 2079 of the amendment paper they will see what the Government's explanatory memorandum says about the criteria. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that it would he unsurprising if they were the criteria published by a masonic lodge for membership. The idea that a court would take the view that the Governor had exercised his discretion in a way no reasonable man could have done—and that is the test in a judicial review—in deciding between applicant No. 500 and applicant No. 501 is totally absurd.

Mr. Lloyd: We shall come in due time to the Orders in Council, which will lay down the criteria. My right hon. Friend should not assume in too much detail what those criteria will be. We have done our best in the explanatory paper to show what our thinking is, but the usefulness of the Report and Committee stages is that they enable points to be made that we can bear in mind when preparing the Orders in Council that are to be brought before the House.
My right hon. Friend is saying that, where it is a matter of discretion under the law and under the Orders in Council, it cannot be reviewed by the courts, but where it is a matter of following requirements laid down by the Bill, or by the Orders in Council, it will be open to review.

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend the Minister makes it plain that there will be no possibility, in his judgment, of appeal. As to the Orders in Council, why did not my hon. Friend follow the example that I set some years ago, of publishing in draft form the statutory instrument, so that the House could consider it while debating the Bill on Report? There is no reason why that could not have been done in this case. It would have made for a more informed debate, and we would not have the muddle over how the scheme would operate when it came to the point. My hon. Friend the Minister asks the House to pass the Bill before it can see what kind of statutory instrument he brings forward.

Mr. Lloyd: I am not asking the House to pass a statutory instrument that has yet to be brought forward.
I have covered most of the points made in debate except those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend the Minister says that the guts of the thing will come forward in the statutory instrument, and to a certain extent we must take that on trust. My understanding of a statutory instrument is that one either accepts the whole of it or gets rid of the whole of it, and that it is not amendable. Is my hon. Friend proposing a new form of statutory instrument?

Mr. Lloyd: I am not. I am saying that the Report stage gives plenty of opportunity for my hon. Friend to say what he would and would not like to see in the Bill.
I return to amendment No. 18, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and others of my hon. Friends. My right hon. Friend has made half my remarks for me. He is right that a major reason why there should not be an appeal to the Home Secretary is that the Governor will have the information and will be running the scheme according to the means laid down by the House. Therefore, the information available to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be the same as that available to the Governor—it would have come from Hong Kong.
As the criteria are designed to determine those who are most valuable to Hong Kong, my right hon. Friend is right in thinking that the assessment will be more effectively and efficiently made by the Governor. However, he retains to himself the final determination of whether someone should be registered as a British citizen. He will make up his mind on the person's suitability to be a British citizen, though the recommended person will come forward on the Governor's evaluation of his or her value to Hong Kong, the Governor having observed the process that we have set down for him.
No doubt a great many people will apply, and it would be impracticable for my right hon. and learned Friend to scrutinise not just the appeals but the merits of all who had been successful in gaining a recommendation. As there is a top limit on the numbers, if my right hon. and learned Friend allows some appeals, others would have to drop out because of the upper limit set by the House. That would create enormous difficulties, as well as a huge backlog of cases. None of them could be decided until my right hon. and learned Friend had, in effect, reviewed them all. As the need in Hong Kong is for the reassurance that the Bill can give and for it to take effect quickly, it would be wholly counter-productive for the right of appeal to be enacted in the Bill. For that reason, my right hon. Friend's amendment must be rejected.

Mr. Tebbit: First, may I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The right hon. Gentleman cannot speak a second time without the leave of the House. Does the right hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House to do so? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The leave of the House is denied.

Mr. Tebbit: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not seeking to address the House again on the issues but endeavouring to establish whether the House may vote


on amendment No. 18. I know that it would come not at this moment, but at the appropriate point in the consideration of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall have to give consideration to what happens to intermediate amendments, as that may have an influence on the Chair's judgment about the propriety of such a Division. I will consider the matter at the appropriate time, when I shall bear in mind the right hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Marlow: Two issues still concern me at this stage. The first is the involvement of the courts, as suggested by the Opposition amendment. The second, and more important, is the aspect raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) in his amendment, concerning the involvement by the House at a later stage.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) for clarifying his amendment, which would if anything extend the circumstances in which there could be judicial review and court involvement. I am deeply concerned about that. In respect of various measures passed by the House, notably the community charge, we recently discovered that many aggrieved citizens flocked to the courts and sought to make that legislation more difficult to implement.
If the involvement of the courts is to increase, it is surely possible that many people in Hong Kong will be able to claim not that discretion has been applied unreasonably against them but that in some way, even through the distribution of a notice by post, the matter was incorrectly administered. They might choose to take their argument before the courts to be decided. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central were to persist with his new clause and gain a majority for it, there is a real risk that the intentions behind the legislation could be rendered, to a great extent, unworkable.
As for the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford, I offer the following scenario. Let us suppose that, in the exercise of his powers, the Governor of Hong Kong were to award British citizenship to a certain gentleman. If my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, in the exercise of his powers, said that he had no objection and that this was a suitable person to be given a British passport and to come to the United Kingdom; and if the gentleman then came to reside here, perhaps in Chingford or in my constituency, at an early date—despite the intentions of the Bill, which are that he should stay in Hong Kong until 1997; if, as I say, this gentleman took immediate advantage of his citizenship, he might at some subsequent stage receive a communication from a friend or relative still living in Hong Kong who himself had sought to acquire the valuable privilege of British citizenship. The Governor of Hong Kong, exercising his discretion within the rules, or people acting on behalf of the Governor, might, in the view of this friend or relative, have unreasonably denied him the opportunity to which he felt he was entitled to be granted a British passport.
My consituent might then come to me and say, "Mr. Marlow, there has been a gross miscarriage of justice. The Governor has looked at my friend or relative's application and, because of various circumstances in Hong Kong, has improperly exercised his discretion and refused to grant

my friend or relative the passport which, knowing British law, knowing you and knowing the fabric of British society, I believe he should have been granted. What, Mr. Marlow, are you going to do on behalf of my friend or relative?"
I could say, "He is in Hong Kong; it is nothing to do with me." He might say, "Mr. Marlow, it is something to do with you because you are a Member of Parliament and Parliament is responsible for what is happening in Hong Kong." What should I do? Should I write a letter to the Governor of Hong Kong telling him that a constituent of mine has brought me a point to which I have no answer? What status do I have with the Governor of Hong Kong? None at all. If I write to him, what will he say? What will he do? What interest will he have in communicating with me?
No doubt I would receive a polite, decent reply, full of a great deal of explanation, from the Governor, but that is not my role as a Member of Parliament. I would much rather write to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to learn from him his views on the problem. That is the way parliamentary democracy works; that is the role of a Member of Parliament. So, before we vote on the new clause, I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister for his views on this conundrum.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided:Ayes 176, Noes 297.

Division No. 230]
[7.53 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dewar, Donald


Adley, Robert
Dixon, Don


Allen, Graham
Dobson, Frank


Armstrong, Hilary
Doran, Frank


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Duffy, A. E. P.


Ashton, Joe
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Beckett, Margaret
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bell, Stuart
Fatchett, Derek


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Bermingham, Gerald
Fisher, Mark


Bidwell, Sydney
Flannery, Martin


Boateng, Paul
Flynn, Paul


Boyes, Roland
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bradley, Keith
Foster, Derek


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Foulkes, George


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Fraser, John


Buckley, George J.
Fyfe, Maria


Caborn, Richard
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Callaghan, Jim
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Canavan, Dennis
Gordon, Mildred


Carr, Michael
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clay, Bob
Grocott, Bruce


Clelland, David
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cohen, Harry
Haynes, Frank


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Corbett, Robin
Henderson, Doug


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hinchliffe, David


Cox, Tom
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Crowther, Stan
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cryer, Bob
Home Robertson, John


Cummings, John
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Dalyell, Tam
Hoyle, Doug


Darling, Alistair
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Ingram, Adam






Janner, Greville
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Redmond, Martin


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Reid, Dr John


Leighton, Ron
Richardson, Jo


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Robertson, George


Lewis, Terry
Rogers, Allan


Livingstone, Ken
Rooker, Jeff


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Loyden, Eddie
Rowlands, Ted


McAllion, John
Ruddock, Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Sedgemore, Brian


Macdonald, Calum A.
Sheerman, Barry


McFall, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McKelvey, William
Skinner, Dennis


McLeish, Henry
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McWilliam, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Madden, Max
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Marek, Dr John
Snape, Peter


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Soley, Clive


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Spearing, Nigel


Martlew, Eric
Stott, Roger


Maxton, John
Strang, Gavin


Meacher, Michael
Straw, Jack


Michael, Alun
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Turner, Dennis


Morgan, Rhodri
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morley, Elliot
Wareing, Robert N.


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Mullin, Chris
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Murphy, Paul
Wilson, Brian


Nellist, Dave
Winnick, David


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wise, Mrs Audrey


O'Brien, William
Worthington, Tony


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wray, Jimmy


Parry, Robert
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Patchett, Terry



Pendry, Tom
Tellers for the Ayes:


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Mr. Ken Eastham and Mrs. Llin Golding.


Prescott, John





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brazier, Julian


Allason, Rupert
Bright, Graham


Alton, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Amess, David
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Arbuthnot, James
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Ashby, David
Buck, Sir Antony


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Burns, Simon


Atkins, Robert
Burt, Alistair


Atkinson, David
Butler, Chris


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Butterfill, John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Baldry, Tony
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Batiste, Spencer
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carrington, Matthew


Bellingham, Henry
Cash, William


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Benyon, W.
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Chapman, Sydney


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Chope, Christopher


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Churchill, Mr


Body, Sir Richard
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Boswell, Tim
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bottomley, Peter
Conway, Derek


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Cormack, Patrick


Bowis, John
Couchman, James


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Currie, Mrs Edwina





Curry, David
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kirkwood, Archy


Day, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Devlin, Tim
Knowles, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lang, Ian


Eggar, Tim
Latham, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Lawrence, Ivan


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fallon, Michael
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Favell, Tony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fearn, Ronald
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lightbown, David


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lilley, Peter


Fishburn, John Dudley
Livsey, Richard


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Forth, Eric
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
McCrindle, Robert


Fox, Sir Marcus
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Franks, Cecil
Maclean, David


Freeman, Roger
Maclennan, Robert


Fry, Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Madel, David


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Major, Rt Hon John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Malins, Humfrey


Gorst, John
Mans, Keith


Gow, Ian
Maples, John


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Grist, Ian
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Ground, Patrick
Mates, Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Maude, Hon Francis


Hague, William
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mellor, David


Hanley, Jeremy
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hannam, John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Harris, David
Mills, Iain


Haselhurst, Alan
Miscampbell, Norman


Hawkins, Christopher
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hayes, Jerry
Mitchell, Sir David


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Moate, Roger


Hayward, Robert
Monro, Sir Hector


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Moore, Rt Hon John


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hill, James
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hind, Kenneth
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Neale, Gerrard


Holt, Richard
Needham, Richard


Hordern, Sir Peter
Nelson, Anthony


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Neubert, Michael


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Nicholls, Patrick


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Norris, Steve


Howells, Geraint
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Page, Richard


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Paice, James


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hunter, Andrew
Patnick, Irvine


Irvine, Michael
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Irving, Sir Charles
Patten, Rt Hon John


Jack, Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jackson, Robert
Portillo, Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Powell, William (Corby)


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Price, Sir David


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Raffan, Keith


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Kennedy, Charles
Rathbone, Tim


Key, Robert
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Kilfedder, James
Rhodes James, Robert


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Riddick, Graham






Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rost, Peter
Thurnham, Peter


Rowe, Andrew
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Tracey, Richard


Ryder, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Sackville, Hon Tom
Trippier, David


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Trotter, Neville


Sayeed, Jonathan
Twinn, Dr Ian


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, David (Dover)
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shelton, Sir William
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Walden, George


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wallace, James


Shersby, Michael
Waller, Gary


Sims, Roger
Walters, Sir Dennis


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Warren, Kenneth


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Watts, John


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Whitney, Ray


Squire, Robin
Widdecombe, Ann


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wiggin, Jerry


Stern, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd


Stevens, Lewis
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Yeo, Tim


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sumberg, David
Younger, Rt Hon George


Taylor, Ian (Esher)



Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. Tony Durant.


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)



Temple-Morris, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3

APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM

'The Secretary of State shall by direction given to the Governor make provision for him to consider applications for asylum in the United Kingdom in respect of any person who, by virtue of his race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group, may be in danger of persecution in Hong Kong after 30th June 1997.'.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Darling: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As I said in Committee, I doubt whether we would be discussing the Bill were it not for the appalling events in Tiananmen square last year, not because there would not have been problems and uncertainties about what will happen in Hong Kong after 1997 but because there is no doubt that the events that we saw on television last year shocked people around the world and understandably led people inside China and Hong Kong to fear for their lives, or at least their safety, if the regime in China is the same after the handing over of the colony in 1997.
It is all the more surprising that the Bill makes no special provision for those who seek what I might loosely call asylum. We are told that it deals with the special circumstances of Hong Kong, which I understand, but I should have thought that the Government would make some provision to deal with the special circumstances of those who fear persecution or fear for their lives—the usual criteria that are considered for asylum.
Instead, we are told that the individuals concerned will have to use the normal system for considering applications for asylum, even though it is common ground that there are special circumstances in Hong Kong.
That is where the problems start. Anyone who has had the slightest contact with the asylum system that we operate will know that our reputation of being a haven for those who fear for their lives can at times be tarnished by the way in which we operate the asylum regime. One has only to consider the case of the 33 people from China who are currently in this country to see one of the difficulties that they face.
If individuals on the way to this country make the mistake of landing in a third country, the Government's attitude—they would pray in aid the United Nations convention—is that they must make their applications for asylum in that third country. That can be difficult, because the third country may not have the recognised systems and recognised rule of law and due process of law that we have in this country. It could be a country where, to put it bluntly, the system for dealing with asylum may be rudimentary.
In terms of the United Nations convention, the Government are entitled to say, "We are not prepared to entertain your applications for asylum. You must go to a third country." That is a problem for people who fear persecution in 1997 or thereafter. Because of the special circumstances of Hong Kong, there should be a special system to consider applications for asylum from Hong Kong. A number of people may fear for their safety.
I am prepared to concede that if an individual arrives in this country claiming asylum, the application is dealt with expeditiously and normally quite fairly, and the outcome is usually satisfactory from the point of view of the applicant. However, it is obvious that, when more than one or two such people arrive—it may be five or six, or 20 or 30—the attitude of the Government, especially the Home Office, changes dramatically.
We need only look at the position of the Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka in the mid-1980s or the Kurdish refugees who came from Turkey last year. The Government pulled down the shutters. In the case of the Kurdish refugees, the Government even sent immigration officers on to the aeroplane, and they clambered over passengers sorting out who was likely to be visiting this country in the normal course of events and who might be seeking asylum. Some asylum seekers did not even get off the aeroplane, so anxious were the Government to avoid what they regarded as a troublesome crisis.
I make that point because, if things are going badly in 1997, there could well be more than one or two people who fear for their lives or the safety of their families. The Government should set up a special system to deal with Hong Kong. I know that it will be said that there are other areas in the world that are trouble spots and are likely to generate people seeking asylum. That may be, but if we are dealing with the special circumstances of Hong Kong, we should have provisions to deal with people there.
Had it not been for the events of last year, which must have led people to fear for their lives, I doubt that we would even be discussing anything to do with Hong Kong. Most people in this country would like to think that the people of Hong Kong will be treated fairly and reasonably. I am afraid that, without a special scheme, those people


will have to take their chances in the general regime and try to find refuge somewhere in the world—perhaps in this country, perhaps elsewhere.
I understand that the Government will sign an intergovernmental agreement in the next week or two that will radically alter the asylum system in Europe. There will be a common visa system throughout Europe, so that, if an applicant for asylum is refused entry in one EEC country, he will be refused entry for the entire EEC—in effect, the whole of western Europe. If that system is introduced, it will cut the opportunities available to those people who genuinely fear for their lives and their safety. The House should think long and hard before endorsing that system.
It is obvious that that development will have to be discussed at another time because it would be inappropriate to do so in this fairly narrow debate. It emphasises the point that we need a special system to deal with what are undoubtedly special circumstances. It may be that the problem will not arise and that by 1997 conditions will be radically different. But as we are debating the Bill in the belief that the problems may exist, it seems only right that we should introduce this special system to deal with people who may face a substantial risk to their lives.

Mr. Madden: In supporting new clause 3, I refer to a specific case concerning applicants for political asylum from mainland China which I have raised in the House a number of times in recent weeks. I very much regret the fact that the responsible Home Office Minister is absent and that there does not seem to be any other Home Office representative here. Nevertheless, I hope that the Foreign Office Minister can announce the Government's intentions.
This case arose on Saturday 5 May when 33 mainland Chinese nationals arrived at Heathrow on their way from Panama to Canada, where they hoped to seek political asylum. It was discovered at Heathrow that, although they had valid passports, their visas for Canada were false. The carrier refused to take them on to Canada and they then requested political asylum in the United Kingdom. The immigration service initially treated them as asylum seekers, began interviewing with regard to their claims to asylum and granted them temporary admission to the United Kingdom pending the determination of their claims.
This is the normal method of handling asylum applications. There is an initial brief interview. The individuals are then admitted temporarily to the United Kingdom while a decision is taken at Home Office headquarters. This decision usually takes several months, during which the individuals can consult lawyers and further information and evidence can be submitted to clarify the basis of their claims for asylum. The individuals are sometimes invited to the Home Office for interview, at which time they can bring their own interpreters and lawyers to help them to explain their claim. This normal method has been applied up to now to all Chinese nationals who have applied for asylum in the United Kingdom following the Tiananmen square massacre.
On Monday 7 May, members of various voluntary groups were contacted to help collect the 33 from the airport. These voluntary groups have been co-operating

since last June to provide pastoral care to Chinese refugees in this country. Various helpers from the groups took the 33 to accommodation in north and east London.
On Wednesday 9 May, the Home Office began to indicate that it had changed its mind about the group of 33 and was proposing to deport them from England to Panama. The Home Office would, therefore, cease considering their claims to asylum. The reason is that the United Kingdom operates a "safe third country" policy: if an asylum seeker has come from a third country which is regarded as safe by the Home Office, the asylum seeker can be sent back there to apply for asylum in that country. The only role of the United Kingdom authorities in such countries is to check that the third country is truly safe.
Members of the voluntary groups immediately began to check whether Panama was safe, and the information suggested that it was far from safe. The country is still chaotic after the change of Government. There are no legal safeguards for asylum seekers—the eligibility commission, which is supposed to consider asylum claims, has ceased to function. There is strong anti-Chinese feeling in the country, stirred up partly by the new Government. On Friday 11 May, representatives went to see Home Office officials to seek clarification—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having difficulty understanding whether the people to whom the hon. Member refers came from Hong Kong. What do they have to do with Hong Kong?

Mr. Madden: They are from mainland China. They have passed through—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The new clause relates not to mainland China but to Hong Kong.

Mr. Madden: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. These people passed through Hong Kong on their way to Panama and were seeking to travel to Canada—[Interruption.] I do not know what is amusing the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) so much. We are debating matters that are of vital concern to many people.
The new clause says:
The Secretary of State shall by direction given to the Governor make provision for him to consider applications for asylum in the United Kingdom in respect of any person who, by virtue of his race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group, may be in danger of persecution in Hong Kong after 30th June 1997.
The people to whom I refer, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would fit precisely that definition.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is talking about 33 people who are not from Hong Kong but from another country and not about 1997 but about 1990. I find it difficult to connect the two.

Mr. Madden: The group of people to whom I refer were in Hong Kong and are seeking political asylum in this country. As this debate concerns the procedures operated by the United Kingdom Government in relation to political asylum, I should like to persuade you, Sir, that it is in order to raise their case.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is difficult to understand what the case has to do with the danger of persecution in Hong Kong. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address his remarks to the new clause or resume his seat.

Mr. Madden: Let me conclude briefly—

Mr. Marlow: Would it be fair to say that, if the group went back to Hong Kong, they would be in danger of persecution there?

Mr. Madden: It is clear that, had they been deported by the United Kingdom Government to Panama, they would have been returned to mainland China. I hope that the Minister may be able to deal with the question whther they would have been returned to Hong Kong in his reply. There are important questions for the Home Office and the Government to answer in relation to this case, which has a direct bearing on those in Hong Kong who may seek political asylum under the new clause.
On Friday 11 May, representatives went to see Home Office officials to seek clarification and explain to the Home Office their view that Panama was not a safe third country. The officials rejected the representations but said that they would be willing to consider further representations. At 5.15 pm on Friday, the voluntary groups were informed that the 33 were to be collected by coach on Saturday, to be taken for interview at the airport with a view to their deportation by Sunday.
The 33 Chinese asylum-seekers instructed a lawyer to act for them. He sought the following assurances from the senior immigration officer at Heathrow: first, that the 33 would not be taken into detention at Heathrow on Saturday; secondly, that lawyers could be present at interviews between officials and the 33; and, thirdly, that adequate time would be allowed for the courts to be approached and asked to test the legality of the deporation order—precisely the matter that we were dealing with in the debate immediately before this. The officer refused to give any of those assurances. On Saturday, the interviewees were moved to Harmondsworth detention centre, near Heathrow—a further indication that the immigration service intended to interview the 33 rapidly, place them in detention and deport them before the weekend ended.
A team of six immigration officers and three Chinese interpreters from the immigration service were present. However, the coach that had been sent to collect the 33 came back empty, the 33 apparently having gone into hiding from immigration service officials.
I hope that, in his reply, the Minister will say that the Government are now willing to make a public statement indicating that there is no intention to deport the group of 33, a substantial number of whom fled from China by way of Hong Kong.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What is the connection between the 33 people to whom the hon. Gentleman is referring and the Bill and the new clause?

Mr. Madden: Their case is central to the treatment by the British Government of those seeking political asylum. If the episode has done anything, it has sent an enormously worrying and alarming signal to Hong Kong. The message that they will receive is as follows: "If you have it in mind to seek political asylum in Britain after 1997, we shall treat you in this way." In my view, the way in which the 33 people have been treated is a shameful indictment of the Government, whose record and reputation on political asylum are, in turn, shameful.
I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the 33, who include a girl who has just had a baby, will be allowed to come out of hiding and will be given a firm, clear assurance that they will be allowed what they and their

representatives requested at the time—the right to seek a judicial review of the way in which the case was handled. Again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is a matter that we were debating earlier today.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give those assurances. Unless he does, any fine words that he may utter in reply to the debate will have an extremely hollow ring, not only in this country but in Hong Kong. I hope that the Minister will say, on behalf of the Home Office, that when we are presented, as we undoubtedly will be, with further applications from Hong Kong, between now and 1997 and thereafter, the procedures applied will not be the shameful procedures applied in this case. I hope that the Minister can give those assurances, so that representatives of the group can give the advice that they were eager to give in the first place and so that those people's applications can be properly considered and a judicial review properly undertaken by the courts. They have been waiting for some weeks for such a public statement from the Home Office.
Lastly, I ask the Minister to confirm or deny the rumour that the decision to deport the 33—who included a girl in the advanced stages of pregnancy—was personally approved by the Home Secretary. I have alleged that in the House on a number of occasions in recent weeks but the Home Secretary has sought to dodge the issue and to avoid giving any statement or explanation to the House. I hope that, before the end of our debate, we shall be given the assurance that I have sought and that we will be told whether the decision was personally endorsed and approved by the Home Secretary. If it was, it makes the whole thing even more shameful.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will know that I have registered with the Registrar of Members' Interests my recent visit to the colony.
The new clause deals with the worst possible scenario. I wish to address my comments to a group of people who could be the subject of political discrimination arising from the changeover in 1997. We all know that Hong Kong has not practised democracy as we understand it in the western world—first, because, over the years, the people have felt grateful to the colonial authorities which, in their view, rescued them from the political forces in China; and, secondly, because the colony has been about the practice of enterprise and money-making, which is why there are so many successful businesses there.
In the run-up to 1997, Hong Kong will be faced with the prospect of having to come to terms with democratic arrangements, and the people of Hong Kong will participate in elections. At present, the country is under the control of an Executive Council monitored, in effect, by a Legislative Council. As it moves from one form of control to another, major convulsions in the administration of its society will result. During the period of changeover to democracy in Hong Kong there will be some dramatic times as people, recognising that they have the right to vote, exercise that right and participate in political debates. As they do that, they will look over their shoulders and be ever conscious of what is happening in China. They will consider the implications of what they are doing in the context of that political debate.
8.30 pm
When I was in Hong Kong two weeks ago, I was aware of two bodies of opinion. One body of opinion told me repeatedly that the Hong Kong people did not want to draw too much attention to the tensions that might exist between the colony and China. They did not want to draw attention to the difficulties. Some weeks before I arrived in the colony it was suggested that the Chinese authorities had sponsored the theft of three Mercedes cars and shipped them back to China. That led to a major row in the Hong Kong press. Others believed that such matters should not be raised because they were sensitive and might unsettle the Chinese authorities.
Conversely other people, including politicians such as Mr. Martin Lee, a well-known figure in Hong Kong, believed that the public had a responsibility to debate those matters in the most open fashion. Mr. Lee believed that the Executive Council should act. He called for representations from the British Government to the Chinese Government with regard to the theft of the cars. There is a clear divergence of views on the extent to which the debate should be open, public and voluble as against quiet and discreet.
Over the next few years the people of Hong Kong will be required to take part in that debate. Unless those who are most voluble, and who believe that they have a contribution to make in ensuring safeguards at the time of changeover, are at least aware of the possibility that they may have the right of asylum in another country, that debate might be dampened down. I am most concerned about that group of people.
I do not believe that that group is particularly large. However, to some extent the future of the changeover and the compromises that must take place in the period up to the changeover, will be issues which that small group, as politicians and leaders of the community, will have to address following the elections in 1992 and subsequently. That is very important.
There is another part of the population which we must consider in that context. The problem with addressing that part of the population is that, by implication, in examining their problem, we might open the floodgates in a way that some politicians in this country might try to exploit. When I was in Hong Kong and in Macau, I was aware of major demonstrations. I was in the area just before the anniversary of the events of 4 June although I had no intention of visiting Tiananmen square as was suggested, I believe, by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) on television. That was not my intention. We planned to spend a weekend in southern China on a cultural visit.
As I said, when I was in Macau and in Hong Kong I was aware of demonstrations on the streets. What will happen to the political leaders who are currently involved in those demonstrations? Must they now curtail their activities because they cannot be sure that they will have the right to be heard in an asylum application in 1997? I am worried about that group of people. I understand the problems that arise from considering that matter. Some people may demonstrate or become involved in finding a way round the Government's nationality proposals. They may believe that by becoming involved they can find another way of getting a right of abode elsewhere.
If some way could be found to assure those people that if they are politically active and their livelihoods, lives or

security is endangered, they have at least an opportunity to have their cases for asylum heard, it would do much to mitigate the problem.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman begs his own question. How does he suggest that that problem can be solved? He has a fair point that if someone is indulging in democratic protest in Hong Kong at the moment that might be anathema to the Chinese authorities when they take over. We should perhaps consider that. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, that might provoke other people into going over the top because they are not allowed in under the existing rules. They might protest and seek asylum that way. How would the hon. Gentleman solve that difficult and proper problem?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is why I deployed the counter-argument during my comments. I entered the caveat that I understood other hon. Members might want to enter. I recognise the difficulty and I do not know the answer. Ministers should be aware of the problem. If there is to be full democratic debate in Hong Kong over the next six years, we must accept that certain people in that society will inevitably have to expose themselves to potential penalty from the Chinese authorities in 1997. I hope that the Minister will consider my points.

Mr. Marlow: This is a very sensitive issue and we have had a valuable debate. The Opposition are to be congratulated on their new clause. I do not say that I agree with it, but we must carefully discuss the issue. I am sorry that there are so few right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber to carry the debate forward.
I do not want to repeat the points that have already been made. I was interested in what the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) had to say about the problems facing refugees, and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, West. However, obviously people in Hong Kong will be deeply concerned and influenced by the way in which we deal today with people seeking asylum in the United Kingdom.
The Bill's objective is to keep people in Hong Kong. As I have said, I do not believe that it will achieve that objective. It will have the opposite effect. However, I accept that it is the Government's objective to keep people there. If that is what they are trying to do, how sensitively and fairly the problems set out by the hon. Member for Bradford, West are dealt with by the agencies of Government will be noted in Hong Kong.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman is making a speech.

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman that was a percipient and perceptive comment. That is what I thought that I was doing.
Things in Hong Kong are bound to be sensitive and people in Hong Kong will be looking to this country to see how we deal with immigration and asylum issues because that will have an impact on how they react to the confidence-building measures that the Government intend for them.
There are other aspects of asylum of which even now we should take account. I suspect that I will part company with the hon. Member for Bradford, West in my next point. Most people are aware that there is a growing phenomenon throughout the world: the world is becoming


a smaller place as radio and television transmitters receive and transmit news from one part of the world to another. People in the poorer parts are becoming increasingly aware of the relative wealth and good fortune of those in the wealthier areas.
There is a growing phenomenon, which has already been noted, of people wanting to move from the poorer parts of the world to the wealthier parts. We have seen it happen, and we are seeing it happen at the moment. Of course, at the same time travel is becoming more readily available. There are many benefits from that—for example, it is cheaper and more people can avail themselves of it. Also, people have already made the transition and migrated from the third world to Europe and to America. Having arrived in Europe and America, they acquire adequate wealth to remit some of their money to friends and relatives in the third world. There is a growing and accelerating tendency in this ever-smaller, growing world for people to wish to come and join us in our good fortune in the United Kingdom, Europe and the western world.
Stories have been written and scenarios have been presented. About 10 years ago, a book was written about people from Indonesia. There had been some devastation in Indonesia. People were chartering hulks—old leaky boats—and arriving in their tens of thousands, if not in hundreds of thousands, off Marseilles, leaving their boats and effectively marching into France and daring the authorities to do anything about it. I understand that there was a television programme quite recently about the poor and the oppressed of north Africa—I am not saying that they were oppressed by Governments, but they were oppressed by famine and their circumstances—wishing to migrate northwards into Europe. The problem of migration and the granting of asylum related to the desire for migration will become a much greater political issue in the western world, in the European Community, and certainly, I believe, in the United Kingdom.
When we are addressing this interesting new clause, we should bear the wider issues in mind. I do not know how Opposition Members view the matter at the moment but, at the back of their minds, they must be aware of the potential problem—I do not say that in a pejorative way—that will almost overwhelm western democracies unless we have an adequate but, at the same time, sensitive way of dealing with it. Millions of people are suffering from starvation, millions of people are suffering from deprivation, and millions of people are suffering from a lack of civil liberty and from political harassment in the countries in which they live. Many of those millions are seeking and will continue to seek to migrate.
When my hon. Friend the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that he will address not only the short-term aspects of this issue and the very real importance of the Government's assessment of the issue with regard to the future of Hong Kong, given what the Government are trying to do—and with good motive are trying to do—but the potential problems of the long-term and escalating issue of large-scale migration.
New clause 3 states:
The Secretary of State shall by direction given to the Governor make provision for him to consider applications.
I assume that "by direction" means writing a chap a letter and telling him how he should do it and what powers he

has, or did the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) have it in mind that it should be written into an Order in Council that the House should address at a later stage? Is it a matter for the Secretary of State, or is it a matter that the hon. Gentleman considers is proper for the House to have—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman might be trying to delay proceedings on the Bill. I hope that he is not doing that.

Mr. Marlow: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is of that opinion. It would be totally inappropriate and wrong for any right hon. or hon. Member to seek to delay the proceedings on the Bill. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would take appropriate action were that to arise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am listening with great care and apprehension to the hon. Gentleman's speech.

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your great courtesy in listening to my speech with such care.
The new clause includes the words,
to consider applications for asylum".
Will the Governor decide or recommend? Who is to make the final decision? The new clause goes on with the words, "in respect of any person who, by virtue of his"—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman will carry on as long as he wants. He could cut his comments quite short if he were just to read what is on the amendment paper. All the answers that he wants are set out in the new clause.

Mr. Marlow: That is the hon. Gentleman's view. I have read the new clause several times to myself, but I shall read it out aloud if the hon. Gentleman would be more convinced by it.
The new clause states that the Governor should consider applications. Who is to make a decision on those applications? Is it the Opposition's intention that, yet again, the Governor should have the power effectively of deciding who should get citizenship in this country, or do they believe that the matter should be referred to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary?
8.45 pm
After 30 June 1997, people who belong to a certain race—however that is defined—or religion, splinter group from a religion, nationality or political opinion might be in danger of persecution in Hong Kong. That could be a great number of people. Hong Kong is a haven—thank goodness for that—for capitalism. It is a very successful capitalist economy. Although there has been some change in the economic policy of the People's Republic of China over the past few years, there has not been a great change in political policy—there is great repression there. We have noticed in the not-too-distant past, Mao Tse-Tung and the great revolution—I forget its name at the moment.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Not the long march?

Mr. Marlow: No, not the long march. It was 15 or 20 years ago—the cultural revolution. Who is to say that, in 1996, there will not be another cultural revolution—perhaps a more vigorous and violent cultural revolution than before? Is it not possible in those circumstances that any shopkeeper, share owner or anybody in a position of management or authority within Hong Kong could


maintain the risk after 1997 as the Chinese authorities take over? Is not that in a way opening the door even wider than the Opposition might intend to open it? As a result of the Government's proposal, there is a possibility of 250,000 or more Hong Kong Chinese coming to this country.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Rubbish.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman says, "Rubbish". Does he want to sustain that point?

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: What about the statistics?

Mr. Marlow: The immigration statistics over the past six years are significant. Over the past three years, for example, the number of immigrants to this country from the third world would be sufficient to populate a whole parliamentary constituency. Between the two previous elections, the number of immigrants from the third world—people with different cultural backgrounds and people with largely poor backgrounds—who have come to this country has been sufficient to populate a town the size of Northampton. That is a great number of people.

Mr. Tim Janman: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the number of people whom he describes coming to this country is considerably lower, thankfully, than it has been under socialist Administrations—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are talking about people seeking political asylum from Hong Kong. I hope that we shall stick to that topic.

Mr. Marlow: I am sorry about that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) was seeking to lead me down a road that I was originally dragged down by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing). The fault is not my hon. Friend's. It rests with the Opposition.
Should a regrettable event take place—I do not know whether an event can be regrettable before it happens—such as a culutural revolution squared or a cultural revolution with knobs on in China and if the new clause is passed—I understand why the Opposition have tabled it and to a certain extent it does them credit because it shows their civility and decency—there must be a risk—there are emotive considerations to any word one chooses and I do not use "risk" in a pejorative way—or a real possibility that, whatever the number of immigrants resulting from the Government's details in the Bill, the number of applications for asylum as a result of the new clause—I am still in the dark about whether the applications would be granted by the Governor or the Home Secretary—could be 10,000, 100,000 or 500,000. There are 6 million people in Hong Kong now and many—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the hon. Gentleman competing with Norman?

Mr. Marlow: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that numbers are not important and are not an issue, let him stand on his own two feet and tell the House that the number of immigrants is not of interest or concern to the British people. If that is what he is saying, let him say it loud and clear. I am happy to give way to him.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Under the next amendment.

Mr. Marlow: It may be out of order to say so, but the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that he will deal with the matter under the next amendment.
If events go wrong in China and the black and gloomy scenario, the Gotterdammerung or—

Mr. Foulkes: The Armageddon.

Mr. Marlow: —the Armageddon—I thank the hon. Gentleman—develops, and if the new clause is accepted, well intentioned though it is, there is a real possibility that 500,000 to 1 million Hong Kong Chinese would reasonably feel that they were in danger of persecution in Hong Kong after 30 June 1997.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware of the general feeling on Conservative Benches about the measure. He will not be unaware of the anxiety on these Benches should such a new clause be passed.

Mr. Maclennan: I hoped that a new clause such as this would not be necessary, because the practice of British Governments in dealing with asylum cases would have given security to and assured those who might be apprehensive of their political position following 1997.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), rightly, raised the case of the 33 Chinese people who came from Hong Kong and sought political asylum. It casts a lurid light over the practice of the Home Office in dealing with asylum cases. I too have made representations to the Home Office about it, but the questions raised by the case have not been answered. Many of those people undoubtedly have a strong case for political asylum. That they should all have been made the subject of summary proceedings and that passages should have been booked to send them back to a country where they were fearful for their future does not conform with the best British methods of dealing with asylum. Therefore, the case is pertinent background to the new clause which, as I have said, I had hoped would not have been necessary.
The new clause would be difficult to operate, if it were enacted. It would be operated against the background of tight controls over immigration and of many people, dissatisfied at having been excluded on other grounds from the United Kingdom, looking increasingly desperately as the 1997 deadline approaches for some other way out. To impose on the Governor the responsibility for evaluating the claims of those people ahead of that time would be an onerous burden.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: We have some experience of screening in Hong Kong.

Mr. Maclennan: We do not have experience of screening on the scale that might develop if there were no amelioration in Peking. I would prefer to hear the Minister say that the Government will look seriously at all cases of asylum as and when asylum is sought. That must be the right way to proceed. That assurance could be backed up by a clear sign of the Government's rethinking of the case of the 33 Chinese. Without some sign on that score, any assurances given will sound rather empty.
Although there may be insuperable problems with the new clause, I am extremely symapathetic to the Opposition's purpose in tabling it because I hope that it will elicit from the Government how they intend to deal with these problems as they arise. People such as Martin Lee are undoubtedly exposed, as many others who are courageously seeking to lead the country out of the period


of colonisation towards the objective of one Government of two systems in one country through democratic processes. One does not wish to name names or to single out people. Martin Lee has singled himself out. There are many such people, and the number will increase.
If the Government's purpose of maintaining the population of Hong Kong and the stability of the political situation there is to be supported, the question of asylum cannot be ducked. It is not dealt with directly in the Bill, and the Opposition are right to raise it in the new clause.

Mr. Tebbit: We need not detain ourselves much longer on this new clause. I do not want to delay matters because I sense that the Opposition, who are whipped to vote against the Bill, are melting away every moment. I hope that many of them will join me in the Lobby tonight, if we reach Third Reading, to reiterate the Labour party's opposition to the Bill, as stated by its Front-Bench Members, if not its Back-Bench Members, on Second Reading.
Some important issues are raised by the new clause. They can be dealt with quickly. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) took a lengthy walk around some of the problems that are raised by the new clause, but no one can be in any doubt that he pointed to some serious problems which will arise in the future.
Those of us who watched television the other evening and saw pictures of even internal refugees in the Soviet Union pleading that they were starving in Moscow following their flight from ethnic and political problems cannot doubt that far larger numbers of people around the world will seek to leave countries which are deep in ethnic, political and economic problems to go to countries which are more peaceable.
9 pm
One cannot assume that everyone who arrives at the shores of Great Britain saying, "I am in difficulties with the Government of the country in which I live," or, "The country in which I live is suffering from civil war," or all people whose countries are afflicted by some other form of violence can properly be admitted. We simply cannot do that. We would have to consider that danger if we legislated in the manner suggested in the Bill.
I may find myself in complete agreement with the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude). At present we have a system that has been operated by successive Governments, under which those who are regarded as political refugees can be given asylum in the United Kingdom. If we opened that up in terms such as those suggested in the amendment, even if only for Hong Kong, which might set a precedent for other areas of the world, we should have opened a door which would be so wide open as to be unacceptable.
Not everyone who is in political difference with his Government is necessarily a desirable citizen to admit to one's country. Not everyone whose country is suffering from civil war can be admitted. We could not easily admit to Britain the entire people of the unfortunate country of the Lebanon simply because a civil war was raging there.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not accept the new clause and will say that he and the Government

will abide by the rules and arrangements which have been in use for many years, to which we should stick, even in particularly hard cases.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Francis Maude): This is a serious subject and it is right that the House takes it seriously and gives itself the opportunity to debate it in the context of the new clause.
I had a good deal of sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who, sadly, has left the Chamber. He spoke of the need for debate in Hong Kong to be open and full and not constrained by the unique circumstances in which Hong Kong finds itself. It is important that the Hong Kong Government and the British Government operate in such a way that people do not feel that they are under such a constraint. That would be bad for Hong Kong.
Traditionally, Hong Kong has had a spirit of open and free debate. Those of us who have been there and faced the massed ranks of the Hong Kong media know that Hong Kong does not feel like a closed, repressed society where comment is constrained. While occasionally, I, like many of us, have been victim of that open and free comment, none of us would want it to be quelled in any way. It is important that we should do what we can to ensure that that spirit remains. It is essentially a part of the way of life of Hong Kong, which the joint declaration commits both China and Britain to preserve after 1997.
I understand the spirit that lies behind new clause 3, but it is fundamentally misconceived. Although there are unusual circumstances in Hong Kong, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) correctly stated, arrangements are in place whereby after 1997 signatories to the 1951 convention on refugees will operate in respect of people in Hong Kong in precisely the same way as they operate now.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), took the opportunity to talk about specific cases and, in the context of those specific cases, to dwell a little on the way in which asylum policy operates in general in this country. It is not for me to comment on the general operation of those provisions or on the specific cases. The hon. Gentleman is an ingenious parliamentary operator and will be able to find plenty of opportunities to question my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who has specific responsibility for these matters.
However, the hon. Member for Bradford, West will know that it is customary international practice to regard the most appropriate country to consider a claim for asylum to be the signatory country of the 1951 convention at which the applicant first arrives. Panama is such a signatory and it has been decided that Panama is a safe third country in the normal sense. I stress that that has been decided not by us but by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Panama is safe, in the sense that it can be expected not to reject genuine applicants for asylum.
I hope that that deals with the hon. Gentleman's point. It is a fundamental misconception for him to believe that we unilaterally decided that Panama is a safe country. That is not a decision that would be taken by one country on its own.

Mr. Madden: I am grateful to the Minister for his kind remarks, and I accept his point. However, I hope that the impression that he is seeking to leave—that in some way Britain would be required to deport those young people to Panama—is wholly untrue. At the core of our concern is the fact that the Home Office is refusing to allow a judicial review of decisions in this case, while halting deportation to enable proper judicial reviews to take place.
As the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is now sitting on the Treasury Bench, I should be grateful if the Minister would take the opportunity of this debate to make it clear that, if those young people come out of hiding and if a judicial review is applied for, no action will be taken to deport them to Panama or anywhere else.

Mr. Maude: I shall not be drawn into commenting on that specific case any further, because it does not fall within my responsibilities; nor does it arise—except tangentially—from this debate. However, the hon. Gentleman's points will have been heard and will no doubt be properly dealt with. As I have said, he will have opportunities to raise this matter in the ordinary course of events.
The new clause is fundamentally misconceived because, even if it were included in the Bill, it could not operate after 1997 because it gives the Home Secretary the power to direct the Governor of Hong Kong to do certain things —and the Governor of Hong Kong will not be the Governor of Hong Kong, and will certainly not be subject to directions from the Home Secretary, after 1997. Therefore, the provisions could apply only until 30 June 1997.
Those who have reason to believe before 1997 that they will be subject to persecution after 1997 for any of the reasons set out in the new clause are entitled, under the sensitive services scheme provided by the Bill, to apply for consideration. As was said in Committee, that is not limited to Crown or to Hong Kong Government servants. It is open to those in the private sector and to those who may have been commentators on or participants in the political process. Therefore, there are specific provisions for those who believe before 1997 that they may be subject to persecution after 1997.
For those who cannot anticipate that, or who become subject to persecution after 1997, the ordinary procedures of the 1951 convention would apply in any event. I do not foresee that, after 1997, people in Hong Kong will be subject to persecution.

Mr. Darling: I accept that those in the sensitive services may be entitled to apply under the scheme; whether they succeed is another matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and others were saying that there will be ordinary citizens, not people in sensitive services, who for various reasons have done something that may lead them to believe that they have reason to fear after 1997. We are concerned about those people, and they do not qualify under the special scheme.

Mr. Maude: The sensitive services scheme, despite being described in that way, is not limited to Crown servants or to Hong Kong Government servants. It is open to private citizens who are not Government employees and are not connected with the Administration in any way. There is scope for journalists, perhaps, and private

participants in the political process who have expressed themselves in a way that may lead them to have fear of persecution after 1997, to apply under the scheme.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It might arise that some people's political activities are recognised by the Chinese authorities only after the final tranche has been allocated.

Mr. Maude: That is, inevitably, a possibility. The hon. Gentleman is correct to raise it. The Bill has been introduced with the constraint throughout, and rightly so, that there is an absolute limit of numbers. It does not provide any open-ended commitment. There is a strict limit. The House would not permit us, even if we wanted to, to bring forward a scheme that would inevitably involve that which the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Mr. Tebbit: Perhaps my hon. Friend is sliding slightly away from the heart of the argument. He is saying that there would not be admission under the Bill, which does place a limit on numbers. There would be admission, if it were thought appropriate, under the normal practice of admitting refugees. That would mean that there would be no limitations.
There is a danger, against which none of us can guard, of people who think that they will be disadvantaged economically behaving in a politically outrageous way that is clearly grossly offensive to the Chinese authorities to try to get themselves admitted. They would be economic migrants, a category which is well known in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong authorities have a particularly tough and ruthless way of dealing with those who come within that category.

Mr. Maude: The House will have heard what my right hon. Friend has said, and will be able to judge whether what he suggests is a likely eventuality. I think that there is adequate scope within the Bill for those who can envisage that they may be subject to persecution and for those who, after 1997, find themselves subject to persecution. It is then that the convention will apply. I do not foresee that people will be subject to persecution. Many hon. Members from both sides of the House have urged upon the Government that we should have faith in the commitment of the Chinese Government to the joint declaration, and I do have such faith.

Mr. Wareing: Can we have faith after Tiananmen square?

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman makes neither a new nor an illuminating observation from a sedentary position. He asks whether the same faith is possible after the events that took place in Tiananmen square. It is precisely because confidence has been affected in Hong Kong as a result of those events that we have introduced the Bill, and I believe that it will be effective in restoring some confidence. It does not radically alter the commitment which the Chinese Government have made to the joint declaration. Since the Tiananmen square events, they have put an enormous amount of work into framing the Basic Law and making arrangements for elections within that law. They are not in every respect arrangements with which we are content, and we shall have the opportunity to talk about that later.
The Chinese Government's approach, however, is an odd one for a Government who do not intend to be bound by the provisions of the joint declarations. If they were a


Government who were proposing to tear up the provisions after 1997, it would be odd for them to devote so much energy and effort to getting the provisions in a form with which they are content. I believe that there are grounds for being confident that the joint declaration will be respected after 1997. That involves a clear commitment to civil rights, which will be incorporated in both the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights that the Hong Kong Government are bringing forward.

Mr. Darling: I hope that the Minister is right, and that there will be no need for anyone to seek asylum under this or any other scheme. Surely, however, he accepts the possibility that one or more people may be at risk. Our suggestion is that there should be a special scheme to deal with the special circumstances in Hong Kong. What is his opposition to that? He must accept that the possibility exists; we would not be discussing the Bill tonight if we were not afraid that things might go wrong. What is his difficulty?

Mr. Maude: One difficulty is the fact that asylum cannot operate except in respect of someone from a foreign country, and Hong Kong before 1997—which is when the provision will apply—is not a foreign country. The concept of people from Hong Kong seeking asylum in the United Kingdom is an absurdity.

Mr. Darling: I can see that argument. The Minister is effectively saying that, if there are people in Hong Kong who have reason to fear for their safety now, or at any time before 1997, the Government will say, "Tough luck: you can apply for asylum only after 1997, when you may not even be able to get outside, let alone do anything about it."
If the Minister accepts that there are special circumstances in Hong Kong, surely we must cater for those who may be at risk, and the Opposition are merely suggesting that there should be some system to do that. I do not accept the special services scheme, because I do not think that it is wide enough to deal with anyone who might be in difficulty as a special category.
I am beginning to think that the Government are concerned only about people with an economic need to get out of Hong Kong, and have no great regard for those who may genuinely fear for their lives. Those, however, are the people whom the majority of people in this country would like us to look after.

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman demonstrated earlier that he had not grasped the essential point that I made both in Committee and earlier in the debate. The sensitive service scheme provides for private citizens in precisely that category. His new clause proposes that the Governor should be required to give special consideration to applications for asylum. There cannot be applications for asylum from Hong Kong to the United Kingdom before 1997. That is why the provision is both unnecessary and inherently absurd.

Mr. Marlow: I think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) was talking about the difficulties of getting out of Hong Kong after 1997. If an

adverse regime in China had taken possession of Hong Kong, how would the citizens of Hong Kong be able to apply for asylum?

Mr. Maude: They would be in the same position as asylum seekers anywhere. People can seek asylum only when they have left the place that they wish to leave, and have arrived in the country in which they seek asylum.

Mr. Darling: The Minister is getting into some difficulty. If he examines the provisions relating to the sensitive service section, he will see that the people concerned are those who have
been exposed to special considerations and special factors during the course of their duties.
Those claiming admission under that section would have to prove that whatever they were doing was in the course of their duties, or their employment. It does not take account of someone—for example, a stallholder—who for one reason or another took part in a demonstration or some other political activity, as that activity would not be carried in the course of his duties. In addition, such people would have to be
in the course of serving Hong Kong or United Kingdom interests in either a civilian or military role".
The provision does not take account of the ordinary man in the street.
That is our objection to the Minister's assertion that we do not have to worry because the sensitive sevice section will take care of things. He knows that it concerns people who—because of the nature of their employment—may be at risk, and not people whose contact with political activity is entirely ancillary to their normal work.

Mr. Maude: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is reading from, but I can assure him that it is not intended that the scheme should be limited in that way. It is intended that the scheme should operate in precisely the way that I and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department have set out. Commentators, journalists or participants in the political process who fear that they may be subject to persecution will be entitled to apply under the scheme. Therefore, provision is properly made.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) read from the explanatory memorandum which I had sought to incorporate in the Bill in order that we could be certain about the Government's intentions. But my hon. Friend has just told the House not to worry about that; that that is not what it will be like when it comes to the point. What credence can we put on any of the explanatory memorandum if that bit does not apply?

Mr. Maude: I make precisely the point that my hon. Friend made earlier—that it is precisely to enable the House to express its views about what is in the explanatory memorandum that we published it in the way that we did at this stage.
In those circumstances, new clause 3 is not appropriate. It would not be workable in the context of the Bill, and I invite the House to reject it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 289.

Division No. 231]
[9.21 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Alton, David


Allen, Graham
Armstrong, Hilary






Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Ashton, Joe
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Beckett, Margaret
Ingram, Adam


Bell, Stuart
Janner, Greville


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Bermingham, Gerald
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Bidwell, Sydney
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Boyes, Roland
Kennedy, Charles


Bradley, Keith
Kirkwood, Archy


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Leighton, Ron


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Lewis, Terry


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Livingstone, Ken


Buckley, George J.
Livsey, Richard


Caborn, Richard
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Callaghan, Jim
Loyden, Eddie


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
McAllion, John


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
McAvoy, Thomas


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Macdonald, Calum A.


Canavan, Dennis
McFall, John


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Carr, Michael
McKelvey, William


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McLeish, Henry


Clay, Bob
Maclennan, Robert


Clelland, David
McWilliam, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Madden, Max


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Corbett, Robin
Marek, Dr John


Cox, Tom
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Crowther, Stan
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Cryer, Bob
Martlew, Eric


Cummings, John
Maxton, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Meacher, Michael


Dalyell, Tam
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Darling, Alistair
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Morley, Elliot


Dewar, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dixon, Don
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Doran, Frank
Mowlam, Marjorie


Duffy, A. E. P.
Murphy, Paul


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Nellist, Dave


Eastham, Ken
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Evans, John (St Helens N)
O'Brien, William


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Parry, Robert


Fatchett, Derek
Patchett, Terry


Fearn, Ronald
Pendry, Tom


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Fisher, Mark
Radice, Giles


Flannery, Martin
Redmond, Martin


Flynn, Paul
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Reid, Dr John


Foster, Derek
Richardson, Jo


Foulkes, George
Robertson, George


Fraser, John
Rogers, Allan


Fyfe, Maria
Rooker, Jeff


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Ruddock, Joan


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Sedgemore, Brian


Golding, Mrs Llin
Sheerman, Barry


Gordon, Mildred
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Skinner, Dennis


Grocott, Bruce
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Snape, Peter


Henderson, Doug
Soley, Clive


Hinchliffe, David
Spearing, Nigel


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Stott, Roger


Home Robertson, John
Strang, Gavin


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Straw, Jack


Howells, Geraint
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hoyle, Doug
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis





Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Wilson, Brian


Turner, Dennis
Winnick, David


Wallace, James
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Wareing, Robert N.
Worthington, Tony


Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Wray, Jimmy


Wells, Bowen
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)



Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. James Dunnachie.


Williams, Rt Hon Alan





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Durant, Tony


Allason, Rupert
Eggar, Tim


Amess, David
Emery, Sir Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Ashby, David
Favell, Tony


Atkins, Robert
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Atkinson, David
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forman, Nigel


Baldry, Tony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Batiste, Spencer
Forth, Eric


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bellingham, Henry
Franks, Cecil


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Freeman, Roger


Benyon, W.
Fry, Peter


Bevan, David Gilroy
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gill, Christopher


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Body, Sir Richard
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Boswell, Tim
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bottomley, Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gorst, John


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Gow, Ian


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bowis, John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Grist, Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Ground, Patrick


Brazier, Julian
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hanley, Jeremy


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hannam, John


Buck, Sir Antony
Harris, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Haselhurst, Alan


Burns, Simon
Hawkins, Christopher


Burt, Alistair
Hayes, Jerry


Butcher, John
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Butler, Chris
Hayward, Robert


Butterfill, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Cash, William
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hill, James


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hind, Kenneth


Chapman, Sydney
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Chope, Christopher
Holt, Richard


Churchill, Mr
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Conway, Derek
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Critchley, Julian
Irvine, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Irving, Sir Charles


Curry, David
Jack, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jackson, Robert


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Janman, Tim


Day, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael






Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Key, Robert
Rhodes James, Robert


Kilfedder, James
Riddick, Graham


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knowles, Michael
Rost, Peter


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Rowe, Andrew


Lang, Ian
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Latham, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Lawrence, Ivan
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lee, John (Pendle)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lightbown, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lilley, Peter
Shelton, Sir William


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


McCrindle, Robert
Shersby, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sims, Roger


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Maclean, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Madel, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Major, Rt Hon John
Stern, Michael


Malins, Humfrey
Stevens, Lewis


Mans, Keith
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maples, John
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stokes, Sir John


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sumberg, David


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maude, Hon Francis
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mellor, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thornton, Malcolm


Mills, Iain
Thurnham, Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mitchell, Sir David
Tracey, Richard


Moate, Roger
Tredinnick, David


Monro, Sir Hector
Trippier, David


Moore, Rt Hon John
Trotter, Neville


Morrison, Sir Charles
Twinn, Dr Ian


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Viggers, Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Needham, Richard
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nelson, Anthony
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Neubert, Michael
Walden, George


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Nicholls, Patrick
Waller, Gary


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Warren, Kenneth


Norris, Steve
Watts, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Whitney, Ray


Oppenheim, Phillip
Widdecombe, Ann


Page, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


Paice, James
Wilkinson, John


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Patnick, Irvine
Winterton, Nicholas


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Wolfson, Mark


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wood, Timothy


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Yeo, Tim


Portillo, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Powell, William (Corby)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Price, Sir David



Raffan, Keith
Tellers for the Noes:


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. Michael Fallon.


Rathbone, Tim



Redwood, John

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 4

REGISTRATION OF SPOUSES OF BRITISH CITIZENS

'The Secretary of State shall register as British citizens the spouses of British citizens resident in Hong Kong at the time of the coming into force of this Act.'.—[Mr. Channon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Paul Channon: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following: new clause 5—Registration of widowed spouses—
'The Secretary of State shall register as a British citizen a widowed spouse of a British citizen resident in Hong Kong who dies after the coming into force of this Act.'.
New clause 10—Regulation of Spouses—
'(1) The Secretary of State shall register as British Citizens, any persons, resident in Hong Kong, who have been married to British Citizens for at least three years and who would qualify for British Citizenship if they had been resident in Britain for three years after their marriage.'.

Amendment No. 9, in clause 1, page 1, line 16, leave out subsection (4).

Amendment No. 29, in schedule 2, page 5, line 3, after `shall' insert 'not'.

Amendment No. 30, in page 5, line 8, leave out paragraph 2.

Amendment No. 31, in page 5, line 11, leave out 'whether the' and insert `whose'.

Amendment No. 32, in page 5, line 11, leave out 'or after'.

Amendment No. 33, in page 5, line 12, leave out from `above' to end of line 14.

Amendment No. 34, in page 5, line 25, leave out paragraph 5 and insert—
'5. For the purposes of this Schedule the spouse or child must be settled in Hong Kong and must not have citizenship or nationality other than under the principal Act.'.

Amendment No. 35, in page 5, line 7, at end insert—
' 1 A. The Secretary of State may register a child recommended to him by the Governor in circumstances where that child is dependent on his parents registered under this Act or where there are other reasons that in the Secretary of State's view justify the registration of such a child.'.

Mr. Channon: These amendments deal with a small group of people in Hong Kong and raise important principles that the House should consider. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has added his name to one of the amendments. I have no objection to the wording that he adopted, and claim no credit for my own.
On Second Reading, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary gave assurances about what would happen to the non-United Kingdom spouses of United Kingdom citizens. He said:
There is no difficulty, provided that their husbands are still alive. Wives of British citizens will have an absolute right to come here under the immigration rules."—[Official Report, 19 April 1990; Vol. 170, c. 1574.]
That is not exactly the case. No doubt my right hon. and learned Friend was speaking off the cuff, and I do not blame him for that. However, I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would set out the true position.
The whole purpose of the Bill is to anchor in Hong Kong United Kingdom and Chinese Hong Kong citizens of a crucial nature. It is also important to anchor there a


number of United Kingdom citizens, many of whom are in the police and senior ranks of the civil service, apart from those engaged in commerce. I understand the problems of precedent that my hon. Friend the Minister may explain to the House and the argument that if we made such a provision for Hong Kong, we would have to do so in other cases. I do not accept that. Unless Hong Kong were a special case, there would be no need for the Bill. If the Government did not consider Hong Kong a special case, why are we wasting our time?
It seems only reasonable that the small number of non-United Kingdom spouses of British citizens should be allowed to come to this country without all the difficulties that attend their efforts at the moment. After all, in Hong Kong we are dealing with a Crown colony that we are returning to Chinese rule against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of its inhabitants. I cannot think of a single precedent for that in British colonial history, so I urge the House not to rely on the argument of precedent. It is a very strange situation.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the right hon. Gentleman fully explain that?

Mr. Channon: I will come to that point. If I can get the hon. Gentleman with me, I shall be very pleased.
There is a strange anomaly in what is being proposed, in that residents who are not United Kingdom citizens but who are offered passports will as a right be able to bring their spouses and children into this country, and they will get proper United Kingdom passports as part of the Bill's arrangements. At the same time, United Kingdom citizens already living in Hong Kong and who may have married Hong Kong Chinese or citizens from other countries will not have a right to a British passport in the same way as those who are privileged under the Bill. I find that very odd.

Mr. Skinner: Will the right hon. Gentleman be pushing it to a vote?

Mr. Channon: If I have the hon. Gentleman with me, I know that I will win.
The numbers involved are very small—I suspect, a few hundred at most. Probably no one knows exactly how many, but is is unlikely that they number more than a few hundred. Such a provision would almost certainly not result in any increase in the numbers who come to this country as British citizens because eventually, I accept, most will manage to achieve entry anyway. But the process through which they will be put is unfortunate considering what will happen to the Hong Kong citizens who will receive one of the 50,000 passports.
In any case, it is not true to say that the spouses have an absolute right to come here. They have to fulfil certain conditions before being admitted to this country. They have to show that they will not be a burden on public funds, which could sometimes cause serious problems. If someone loses his job in Hong Kong and has no job to come to here, how can he or his wife prove that his or her spouse will never become a burden on public funds? He or she may become such a burden precisely because the British Government—probably inevitably—are going to return Hong Kong to Chinese rule in 1997.
Settlement clearance has to be obtained, too. Indeed, some such cases have been turned down, as the Minister told me in a parliamentary answer not so long ago.
Perhaps he could say a word or two about those cases—I concede that they may not have been on all fours with these—but in the absence of further explanation it looks as though there have been some cases of non-United Kingdom spouses of British citizens living in Hong Kong being refused admission to this country—and that cannot be right.
If the political emergency about which most people in Hong Kong are worried arises, I believe that quite a number of expatriates living in Hong Kong will think it much safer to leave Hong Kong before 1997 to be sure of getting their spouses into this country. That is contrary to the whole point of the Bill which, after all, is designed to anchor people in Hong Kong so that its economy does not collapse before 1997 because of a lack of people with necessary expertise. These expatriates are clearly worried about their spouses' position—rightly or wrongly—and I urge the Government to do what they can to help.
Some people have already left. I know of people who have left because of their fear of not being able to get their wives into this country; some are seriously thinking about the future and are likely to leave in the coming months and years.
The Government have made a concession on widows, but it does not go quite as far as it seems to: it applies only to widows with no other nationality. Some people are married not to Hong Kong Chinese wives or husbands but to Thais, Filipinos or Japanese. They may not have been in contact with their country for many years. Many of them, typically, have children at school in this country and own a house here. Nevertheless, they will have no right of entry even if their husbands have British passports. Is it any wonder that husbands—we are talking overwhelmingly of husbands—are seriously thinking of leaving Hong Kong instead of taking the risk of leaving their families in this position in the next few years?
Under the law—I do not refer to widows who have another citizenship—most widows will have the right to enter this country, but they will then need three years' residence before being entitled to naturalisation. Why cannot it be arranged, in these special circumstances, that the three years be served in Hong Kong?
There is no way of telling, merely by looking at a Hong Kong British dependent territories citizen's passport whether he has any connection with the United Kingdom. There is no way of showing that a person is married to a British citizen, and there is no way that such a person can be sure, despite what the Basic Law says, that she will be able to get out in 1997. So many of them will not take the risk, and will come here. I do not believe that that is what the Government want.
If my new clause cannot be accepted—it should be—can my hon. Friend say anything further tonight that might help those people? Could they not serve the three years residence in Hong Kong? Could a stamp be put on the passports of spouses who have British dependent territory passports to show that they have a connection with the United Kingdom? Is there any merit in the voluntary registration scheme, whereby the British authorities in Hong Kong would know who these spouses were and could help them?
The House must understand—I think it does—that we are living in volatile times in Hong Kong, and an emergency there cannot be ruled out. If, in the next few years, the Chinese regime remains hostile and is thought to


be damaging to the future of Hong Kong, many expatriates will leave because of their worries about their spouses.
I cannot believe that it is right, when we are giving special privileges to 50,000 people of Hong Kong citizenship, that we cannot give an assurance to a small number of United Kingdom citizens who have spouses, lives and careers that they want to look after and foster in the next few years. If they are in doubt, of course they will go now. Why take the risk of waiting until 1997 to see what happens?
9.45 pm
What reassurances can my hon. Friend the Minister give those people? I ask him to think seriously about their position, because they are worried about their future and spouses. If we do nothing to reassure them in legislation or by some other means, there is a risk that many will leave. That will be damaging for Hong Kong, for the Hong Kong police, for the civil service and for attempts being made by the Government to anchor key people in the colony.
I ask my hon. Friend to give the new clause serious consideration. Few people are involved, but it is an important point of principle.

Mr. Marlow: How many?

Mr. Channon: I think 200 or 300, but it may be 400 or 500; no one knows exactly. We are talking not about thousands of people but about a small number.
I urge the House to give the new clause serious consideration and to join me in pressing the Government to do more to reassure those people.

Mr. Maclennan: I support the purposes of the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) in tabling the two new clauses, which seek to achieve the same ends as my new clause 10. Like him, I am not certain that the method that I have advocated to achieve those ends is right, and I would happily support his new clause if he decided that it was appropriate to divide the House.
The primary purpose of the Bill is to offer British citizenship to a select number of people, thereby offering an incentive to the people on whom Hong Kong depends. I am concerned that the treatment of spouses, with which the new clauses deal, contradicts that policy. As long as a couple manage to persuade the immigration authorities that the primary purpose of marriage is marriage and not an attempt to get a passport, citizenship is won after the spouses has been in Britain for three years. But with the uncertainty in Hong Kong, many British residents who may have been working there for years and regard it as their home may feel forced to leave for the safety of their spouse. Furthermore, the most concerned people are most likely to be the business and professional people whom the Government want to remain in Hong Kong.
There are also people who are not catered for by the scheme set out in the Bill. The crucial Act is the British Nationality Act 1981, which establishes the three-year residence requirement. My drafting would seek to go with the grain of that Act and to cater for the needs of spouses. It does not therefore go quite as far as the new clause moved by the right hon. Member for Southend, West. It

would simply allow residence in Hong Kong to be the equivalent of that in Britain—to acquire citizenship through one's spouse.
In Commitee, the Minister said:
There is no practical difficulty about the position of the partners of British citizens when the citizens are still alive. Such non-British spouses can accompany their husbands or wives to the United Kingdom for settlement at any time. Of course, they do not get British citizenship immediately; that is governed by the normal rules under the 1981 Act.
That is the exact point. They had to leave their homes and businesses to secure the future of their spouses. That runs counter to the Bill's purposes. The Minister continued:
we want to keep as closely to that Act as we can and have acted differently under the Bill only when there was a special and compelling reason to do so.
New clause 10 would keep within the requirements of the 1981 Act.
One of the most compelling reasons for people wanting to leave to ensure that their spouses are registered is the fear that something might happen to them and place their spouses in an untenable position. The Minister addressed that point in Committee and said:
We accept that in such unique circumstances, it is natural that the expatriate community should be particularly anxious about widows—as they will be in the majority of cases—after 1997. Because of that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave a new assurance on Second Reading. He said that the widowed spouse of a British citizen who was resident in the territory at the time of the death would be allowed to settle here as a concession outside the immigration rules. That assurance will certainly be honoured by this Government." —[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 May 1990; c.94–5.]
That is of some value, but it is certainly not an assurance that leads directly to citizenship. It may well be that the widow or widower would have strong domestic and economic ties with Hong Kong and would therefore be in a dreadful dilemma as to what to do. New clause 10 would ensure that that dilemma did not arise in most cases. The Government accept the need to encourage people to stay to ensure that there is a viable Hong Kong between now and 1997. I therefore commend my new clause to the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Steven—

Several Hon. Members: Norris.

Mr. Speaker: Steven Norris.

Mr. Steve Norris: It is terribly off-putting to have one of those faces that is so instantly forgettable. Quite apart from having dined within 6 ft of you this evening, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that in these circumstances it induces a certain sense of personal humility of a new order, even for those of us in this profession, and I shall remember this long after you have forgotten yet again, Sir. I remember what happened in 1983 when I was the Member for Oxford, East and you looked across at me and said, "Morris Oxford." It was not right then and it is not right still. That apart, I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: I apologise. I was thinking what a nice wife the hon. Member has.

Mr. Norris: That is typically gracious of you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that my wife will be delighted to hear that. Of course I entirely agree, and I hasten to place it on the record.
I recall that on Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) raised the matter which is the subject of the new clause with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who used the words of which my right hon. Friend reminded us. He said that spouses in this position have an absolute right to enter. That remark was repeated more than once. I share the reservations expressed by my right hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) about the validity of that remark. Those of us who have experienced the difficulties of our constituents who are in the position described by the Home Secretary will know that the process is far from easy. It is particularly difficult if one's face is not white and if one is not obviously of British stock.
One thing on which we can agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is that the position of spouses in both categories covered by my right hon. Friend's new clause is no different from that of spouses in any other country. That may or may not reflect well on our immigration procedures. My experience in my previous constituency—not so much in my present constituency— is that it does not reflect well. But we shall pass over that because it is a subject for another occasion. The inequity that we are discussing is not an inequity as between spouses in Hong Kong and elsewhere in the world. It has to do with the extraordinary proposition that if an ethnic Chinese obtains a passport under the scheme and his ethnic Chinese wife obtains a passport under the scheme, his ethnic Chinese wife is in a substantially better position than the ethnic Chinese wife of a British citizen.
What are the practical consequences of that extraordinary proposition? I received the introduction of the Bill with considerable scepticism, my initial observation being that it was difficult to see why, under a scheme designed to keep people in Hong Kong, a large number of passports should be issued to enable them to come to Britain. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to go to Hong Kong to see what the place and the people are like. It was a refreshing experience.

Mr. Skinner: Who paid?

Mr. Norris: My visit was paid for entirely by the Hong Kong Government, and in my case, at least, they made a spectacularly good investment. I came away convinced that, whatever else the package may be, it is not an immigration package and that, if anything, it should be broader. My right hon. and very dear Friend, my next-door neighbour in Chingford, will probably be deeply disappointed with me—among other things—when I say that it is rather embarrassing to be a British Member of Parliament visiting Hong Kong. Surveys have been conducted to discover where the Hong Kong Chinese want to go if they have to leave. A survey of surveyors showed that 48 per cent. wanted to go to Canada; 32 per cent. to Australia; 8 per cent. to the United States; and 1·8 per cent. to Britain. Incidentally, 1·1 per cent. of those who wanted to come here wished to use Britain to go elsewhere in the European Community.
It was my first visit to Hong Kong. As ever, the Hong Kong people were extraordinarily courteous and polite,

but they said, "You really must be mad—not to say a little arrogant—to imagine that we would ever, in a thousand years, really want to come to live in Britain, although it is frightfully nice of you to be so considerate." Clearly, what the Hong Kong people want is an anchoring package. That became clear to me. If one has to say that one's initial reservations were wrong, I am glad to say it because it was certainly true in my case.
In the context of anchoring, what is depressing—

Mr. Janman: My hon. Friend referred to anchoring. Did he have the opportunity to read an article in The Sunday Times supplement some months ago? In the last paragraph, the correspondent wrote:
Every Hong Kong immigrant I met in Canada raised two points with me. The first was to stress that no one they knew back home trusted Beijing or wanted to stay on after the handover to mainland China in 1997. The second was to ask when I thought Britain would open its doors to admit the 3·25 million Hong Kong Chinese who are currently entitled to that famous blue passport.
How do the comments of that correspondent, who has been to Canada and spoken to many immigrants from Hong Kong, fit in with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris)? The two points seem to be in conflict.

Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend's intervention demonstrates the wisdom of taking the advice that I once read in a business guide about managing a business. Under advice on the composition of the board of directors, it stated that it was useful to have someone on the board who knew where the factory was. I have always believed that, in that context, the best thing to do—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Norris: The best thing to do is—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Norris: I will be infinitely more polite than my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and give way in a second.
The best thing to do is to go and look for oneself. If we do that, we must weigh the conflicting opinions. One opinion is that we cannot trust Peking and that anyone with any sense wants to get out of Hong Kong. According to that opinion, there are 3·25 million people waiting to sweep across the border.
The conflicting opinion was the recurring one that I heard in Hong Kong. In fact I heard this from many people who have no direct interest in the matter because they already have British passports. They had absolutely no axe to grind. The conflicting opinion is that people accept that times will be difficult, but times difficult or otherwise are nothing new in Hong Kong. They lived through 1967. I do want to make a Second Reading speech, although I am in danger of doing so in response to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman). Suffice it to say that the conflicting opinion is that times might be difficult, but


people are happy to be in Hong Kong. They believe that what they want and what Britain will want to facilitate, in view of the substantial financial commercial interests in Hong Kong—interests that are infinitely understated—is an anchoring package.
It is ironic that the Bill anchors a substantial number of vital people, but in the group of spouses highlighted in the new clause tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) there is a fatalism about the necessity to leave Hong Kong.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give me one good reason why, if those people are so uncomplimentary about this country, we should make any effort on their behalf, as opposed to the very honourable people who are wives of British citizens who have more right to come here? Why should we bother about the others—[Interruption.]

Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend and I may have to disagree about the merits or otherwise of the package. I would be straying into a Second Reading debate if I was to give my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) a full answer. However, I am glad of her support, as I understand it, for the new clause and the amendments.
Both my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland highlighted an important lacuna in the present proposals. We should consider that point for three reasons. First, the numbers involved are tiny. We should be clear that we are talking about 200 or 300 or perhaps a few more.
Secondly, the vulnerability of the widows is something that we should be prepared to recognise because they are widows of British citizens. Finally, it is nonsense to produce an anchoring package in which the one group of people who will not be anchored are, ironically, British citizens with ethnic Chinese spouses.
Those people have told me time and again—perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock can take some comfort from this—that they will have to leave Hong Kong because they cannot trust to fate and assume that their wives will be able to enter as conveniently as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary suggested, and will be able to obtain citizenship and be hale and hearty throughout.
For those reasons, we should support the measures. I hope that the opinions expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West will find favour with the Home Secretary. If I were to choose between the measures, I would favour that in the name of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, because the introduction of a time period to eliminate the artificial marriage—clearly the device marriage could be used in this context; it is not an unknown technique—is valuable. We should pursue that matter, and perhaps the compromise of a time being served in Hong Kong rather than here, or a simple eligibility period based on the durability of a marriage, would suffice.
With those comments, I strongly commend the principle behind the new clauses to the House.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I wish to speak to new clause 5, which was moved by the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), but before doing so I shall comment

on some remarks that were made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Morris), who may have harboured the same reservations about this matter as I did before I went to Hong Kong.

Mr. Skinner: You went on a trip, did you?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I went to Hong Kong to find the truth and to establish in my mind that what I was doing here in the House of Commons was the right thing to do in all the circumstances. That is why I shall speak on several amendments and voice the concerns that were expressed to me by people in the colony.
During my recent visit, one of the groups that I was able to meet was an organisation called the Concerned Expatriates Society. That group of people came to me in a most distressed state, worried about undertakings that had been given to Parliament by Ministers, expressing the view that those undertakings were insufficient in so far as they might not fully realise or deal with their concerns. I asked them to set out a statement that I could bring to the House, setting out their reservations in their words. That statement is expressed in the most moderate language, and I hope that the Minister is willing to consider it.
The group said:
Under current legislation our spouses lose even the 'right' to enter Britain for settlement purposes should we die whilst still in Hong Kong. The risk exists therefore that families could be separated as a result of our death since any children would of course be full British citizens. The Home Secretary has however recently made an announcement that he recognises this particular situation and is making 'special provision for people in such circumstances'".
They say:
We assume that this means that in the event of our death our spouses will in theory be permitted to settle in Britain. However, we wonder what procedures would be necessary before the surviving spouse could exercise this option, and how long would it take before the paperwork would be completed? We wonder what the situation would be in the case of an emergency. For example, if a British husband dies leaving a widow in Hong Kong with the children at school in Britain would the widow have the absolute right to return immediately to Britain to be with her children and to deal with necessary arrangements? What assurance could be given that she would not under any circumstances be denied entry in such a situation and that she would not need to rely on the discretion of the duty immigration officer. Would she be forced into the position of having to claim she was a tourist in order to ensure entry, but put herself at risk by not having disclosed her true intentions at immigration?
It is not clear whether this 'provision' relates only to spouses who hold BDTC or BNO passports. Hence those spouses of other nationalities may be denied even this encouragement.
They go on:
After our death the risk of prejudice, or worse, exists against a surviving spouse"—
this is an important matter—
and possibly the children, as a result of their connection with Britain.
The very real concern remains that any 'concession' granted now may subsequently be modified, restricted or reversed by the current or future Government and hence that there is no reliable assurance that our spouses really will be permitted to enter Britain after our death.
As a result of our anxieties … British subjects in this position are reappraising their commitment to Hong Kong and are considering whether the risks of staying here are worth taking. In many cases the decision will be that it is in the best interets of the family to leave, while they can, and (subject to the vagaries of the settlement clearance process …) resettle in Britain in order that the three year qualifying period can take place. Hence, even though the Official position is that our spouses have the 'absolute right' to enter


Britain during our lifetime, and even though after our death they may be eligible for some 'provision' to enter Britain, the reality is that … few people in this position will feel assured that their spouses really will be protected in any eventuality.
Whilst the 'provision' referred to by the Home Secretary was no doubt an attempt in good faith to provide adequate assurance to those of us in this position we are afraid that it will most likely have a counter productive effect. Whilst many families in this position have already made the decision to return to Britain in recent year, many of us have remained in the hope that some real, irrevocable and totally reliable assurance would be given to us. Now that we know that this is not the case we know that more and more of us will reach the reluctant conclusion that, for our families' sake, the risks are not worth taking, and that hence a growing number of families will return to Britain over the next few years."

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am not sure whether in the letter from concerned expatriates, the hon. Gentleman was referring to widows or the perceived difficulties of bringing a non-British wife home. If it was the latter, it seems illogical to bring a non-British wife to Britain in case one cannot bring a British non-wife to Britain. If it is the former, an assurance has been given that the non-British wife of a British expatriate will be admitted to this country.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister's words in Hansard will be scrutinised closely by people in Hong Kong, particularly the group to whom I have referred. I shall pass the Minister this document after the debate and perhaps he could write through me or directly to them, setting out the position in detail. If he could give me that undertaking now from the Dispatch Box, it would do much to allay the anxieties of people in Hong Kong.

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary saw the chairman of the British expatriates and a couple of his colleagues yesterday and undertook to write to him on this subject, so it would probably be more useful if the letter came from the Home Secretary than from me.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I give way to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris).

Mr. Norris: While the hon. Gentleman listened to the Minister, did he understand that the points made by the expatriates has been satisfied, or did he share my understanding, which may be deficient, that the Minister spoke about rights of entry, not rights of citizenship? Does he agree that, if the Minister spoke about rights of entry, we are back to what was said on Second Reading, which, evidently, is so unsatisfactory?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister seems to be indicating that, on the question of citizenship, some concession has been made. I am sure that he would wish to clarify that position. The Minister has shaken his head. He has not done so. I am sure that whatever letter he writes will be studied closely by the people of Hong Kong.
I hope that the anxieties expressed by people when we were in Hong Kong are noted by the Minister. The people who came to see us were distressed and worried. They were few in number and they need reassurance.

Mr. Tebbit: I should begin by saying what an interesting speech we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris). I think I am right in saying, Mr. Speaker, if I may introduce you to my hon. Friend, that my hon. Friend is a car dealer. I thought that car dealers usually sold things to other people rather than

being sold things as easily as he appears to have been sold the idea. The next time that I wish to sell a car, I shall go to him, although I might have to go via Hong Kong to make the deal.

Mr. Norris: I should rather describe myself as one of the last honest stockbrokers left. I hope that my right hon. Friend accepts that, in essence, that is what we do. We broke stock between people who do not want it and people who do and make an honest return on it. In that context, it seems perfectly reasonable that those of us who are capable of being persuaded by the silken words of my profession might occasionally be vulnerable to listening to logic and learning something from it.

Mr. Tebbit: I hope that my hon. Friend has not been sold a pup, as sometimes happens in the trade.
As I look at the general shape of the Bill, with my objections undiminished by anything that I have heard, I would regard it as monstrously unfair if the new clause was not accepted by my hon. Friend the Minister. First, the numbers are relatively small and, as the new clause is drafted, the numbers would fall within the total of 50,000 which is written into the Bill. We should not worry unduly about the numbers point one way or the other. The question that we must consider is whether the Government are being fair to these people.
There is an element of equity in the new clause towards people who are British subjects and British citizens. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Channon) said, if the purpose of the Bill is to persuade people to stay in Hong Kong, one can be darned certain that the new clause is the one part of the Bill that will work. I do not believe that the rest of it would work, but this part is essential if that is the object of the Bill.
Yet my hon. Friend the Minister seems to find difficulty in agreeing to it. The argument against the new clause which my hon. Friend will probably adduce is that the position of wives and widows of British subjects in Hong Kong would be put on a basis different from that of similar people in other places overseas. My hon. Friend the Minister nods his head. I am glad that I understood him correctly.
We are not talking about people throughout the world. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East said, we are dealing with a special circumstance. If we intended to deal with people in Hong Kong in the same way as we deal with people in the rest of the world, we could pack up and go home without bothering to reach the dubious stage of giving a Third Reading to the Bill. My hon. Friends on the Front Bench are creating a special deal, a special package, a special way of dealing with people from Hong Kong. That deal is so special that, under these provisions, a bunch of people in Hong Kong who are not responsible to the House will be franchised to fulfil the role of the Home Secretary in granting citizenship. If we are going to go that far, can we not make a teeny-weeny little exception for those British people and their spouses of non-British origin? The Government seem to have swallowed a whole legion of camels and yet are now straining on a gnat—and in any event, the gnat was far more worthy than the camels that are being driven through by the Whips Office tonight.
Therefore, when it seems that the House is united—right across the political spectrum and both political parties, and when even I can agree with the hon. Members


for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and with the Labour Front Bench —I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will consider whether it is possible or conceivable that they have got it wrong and the rest of us have got it right.
I hope that they will not test this matter in the Lobbies, because even if they win tonight—and they might—after the arguments that have been put, I believe that, by the time the Bill gets to another place, my right hon. and hon. Friends may suffer the humiliation of having to return to this House with their tails between their legs to ask the House to undo an amendment made in another place as a result of tonight's debate.
Finally, we are not really anxious about which of the amendments my hon. Friend accepts or about whether he simply says that he entirely and absolutely accepts their purpose and that he will draft a better amendment. We are not fussed or worried about that, because, when the Bill comes back at a later stage and on another day, as I am sure is the Government's intention, a better amendment could be tabled. However, as the amendments stand at the moment, I prefer those which have been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West to those tabled by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland because by setting the operative date—indeed, the deadline—as the date on which the Bill will come into effect, they obviate any problems about trying to judge in future whether a marriage has been made for the primary purpose. That would be helpful.
Therefore, I hope that, when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department makes his speech, accepting the view of the House on these amendments, he will say that that will be the shape of the amendment that the Government will bring forward.

Mr. Janman: I begin by referring to the recent exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) about what a car salesman or his customers should or should not buy. I must advise my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest that if he were to write to me, inviting me to visit his showroom and telling me that he would pay my fares to his showroom and back to my home, and that when I got there he would show me a draft design of a car on a piece of paper but say that the factory that would make the car would not be built for another seven years, I would have some serious doubts about the product that he was trying to sell me—

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: That is scurrilous.

Mr. Norris: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) is not implying that whoever financed my visit to Hong Kong would have been capable of influencing my opinions for that reason. If he is, I hope that in the next few moments he will construct a form of words that makes it clear that he withdraws any such imputation, because I not only reject but resent what he has said.

Mr. Janman: All that I am saying is that—

Mr. Sedgemore: Withdraw.

Mr. Janman: I shall certainly withdraw those comments if my hon. Friend has taken offence at them or has slightly misunderstood them. What I am trying to say to my hon. Friend is that there is a certain analogy. If any hon. Member chooses to go to Hong Kong at the invitation of the Hong Kong Government, it is obvious that the Hong Kong Government are asking that hon. Members go there to show or to tell him or her things —and the Hong Kong Government will decide what is heard and seen—that they hope will be a factor when the hon. Member makes up his or her mind about how to vote on the Bill. I do not think that that is an unreasonable assertion and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest will not have a problem with it.
I welcome and support the new clauses which have been tabled and introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). I agree with the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest that an ethnic Chinese person who has an ethnic Chinese wife will be eligible under the Bill to gain citizenship while a British citizen who has an ethnic Chinese wife will not.
There are other amendments in the group of new clauses and amendments before us which are designed to highlight to the House, which is already aware of the fact, and to the British people as a whole that the Bill is not, as is sometimes described or sometimes perceived by my constituents, at any rate, about giving citizenship to 50,000 Chinese. In fact, it is about citizenship for, on a conservative estimate, 225,000 Hong Kong Chinese. Given the age profile of the 225,000 who will take up the scheme —under the selection procedure extra points will be given to those aged between 30 and 40 years while points will be taken from those who are under 30 or over 60—I suspect that within 10 or 15 years of taking up the scheme we shall see the Hong Kong Chinese population increase to about 400,000 or 500,000. I ask the House to bear with me in the sense that I wish to assume that there will not be an anchor of the sort that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest postulated.
It is worth referring again to the article that appeared in the supplement to The Sunday Times. It described in some detail—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman is among the very few in this place who persist in pushing the myth that all of the 225,000 will come to Britain. They will not come to Britain. It is clear to those of us who have been to Hong Kong that they will not come. I regret that the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends did not enjoy the experience of those of us who went to Hong Kong and heard the case of the Hong Kong Chinese. If he had had that experience, he would not be making his speech this evening. He is provoking unnecessary hysteria among the public in an absence of knowledge of the truth and the reality.

Mr. Janman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will see some irony in what I am about to say. I was not invited to go to Hong Kong. I hope that that fact will neutralise any offence that was not meant to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest. If I had been invited, I would have gone. I was not criticising my hon. Friend for going to Hong Kong. Similarly, I was not criticising the terms upon which he went. If I had been invited to go there to see what the Hong Kong Government wanted to show me and to


hear what they had to tell me, I would have gone. I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend that my previous remarks were not meant to offend him in any way.
It has been said already that these matters are for individual opinion and judgment. Many hon. Members share my view about what will happen. I remind the hon. Member For Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) of the remarks that I quoted earlier from the article that appeared in the supplement to The Sunday Times. A correspondent went to Canada and spoke to many Hong Kong Chinese who had recently lived in Hong Kong, who still had relatives there, and who were in constant communication with Hong Kong. They told him that basically no one in the colony trusted the regime in Peking. They said that most people wanted to get out of Hong Kong as soon as possible. They all wanted to know when Great Britain would legislate to admit 3·25 million people.

Mr. Marlow: I listened carefully to the intervention of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). He may be right—circumstances in China may change—or he may be wrong. What we should consider is the potential liability that may arise from our passing the Bill, and my hon. Friend is, I think, right to address himself to that.

Mr. Janman: My hon. Friend is echoing comments made on other occasions by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford. If we are to issue an insurance policy, we must be prepared to underwrite that policy in full.
The 1981 Act already allows considerable flexibility in regard to Hong Kong: the £200,000 rule, for example, would let in, at the Home Secretary's discretion, a considerable number of people with the ability to make substantial investments in this country, and section 4(5) already caters for senior Crown servants. By passing the Bill, however, the House will put into law a cast-iron guarantee. Although I respect the analysis of the hon. Member for Workington—after all, he has spent a few days in Hong Kong, and I have not been there at all—I cannot, on the basis of what I have heard and read, agree with his assessment of the position.
Two Canadian cities, Vancouver and Toronto, have accepted large numbers of economic migrants from Hong Kong. According to Wolfgang Lippert, general manager of the National Real Estate company in Vancouver,
The middle class in Hong Kong are wealthy people as fare as Canadians are concerned. A million dollars in family assets is the bottom end of the white collar range.
That wealth has led to an extensive buying up of property, which in turn has meant a 50 per cent. rise in the price of property on the west side of the city over the past 12 months. The resulting major distortion of the housing market has not gone down at all well with the residents of Vancouver.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford hinted earlier, the way in which the Chinese like to do things sometimes clashes with the customs of the indigenous population. The article quotes Mr. Jonathan Chin, a Chinese Canadian, as saying:
Canadians still believe in honesty in business.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The new clause deals specifically with spouses.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) may wish to raise other matters, but will you ensure that he does not raise them on this new clause?

Mr. Speaker: My attention was temporarily distracted while I was looking at the next group of amendments. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will stay in order.

Mr. Janman: I think that I am in order, Mr. Speaker. Some of the new clauses and amendments seek to highlight the fact that the Bill is not simply about 50,000 heads of household being given passports; it is about their spouses and families as well. Far more people are involved, and that is the issue that I am addressing.
Another Chinese Canadian is quoted as saying:
In Hong Kong there is no sense of community. There is money and family and that's it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman leave this to me? The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) has tabled a group of amendments, and he is addressing himself to them.

Mr. Janman: The problems that I have been describing are causing a number of difficulties in Canada. It is fair to say that the Canadian people have always had a long tradition and history of tolerance, but that tolerance is being strained.
The article quotes a number of people expressing a great deal of intolerance and frustration about the effects of this large presence of Hong Kong Chinese in Canada and, in particular, Vancouver and Toronto, and the effects that that is having.
Sandra Wilking, the first Chinese alderman ever to be elected to Vancouver city council, was quoted as saying:
Immigration is the most volatile issue in this country.
Mary Lavin, a previously apolitical office worker, started the Residents Save Vancouver Please group in early 1989 in a bid to modify Canadian policies on immigration policies towards Hong Kong. She said:
What is happening in Canada has not been matched since the white people took the land from the Indians … We think we are about to become Indians.
That woman is a reserved and delicate young woman who, according to the correspondent who wrote the piece in The Sunday Times, is a long way from being the closet racist that one feared to meet.
Betty Tangye is a soft-spoken piano teacher without a mean, let alone a racist, bone in her body. She is one of the leading campaigners against the effect that Hong Kong immigration has had on middle-class housing. I have already outlined the distortions in the housing market that are happening.
What has been happening in Vancouver and Toronto will happen on a much larger scale in our towns and cities, particularly in the south-east of England. If 225,000 people take up British citizenship and come here, the political reality is that there will not be a corresponding relaxation of our planning laws and green belt restrictions in London and the south-east. Distortions similar to those that occurred in Vancouver and Toronto will occur in the housing market in London and the south-east.
For those reasons, I support new clause 4 and the new clauses and amendments grouped with it.

Mr. Foulkes: It now falls upon me to say a few words on behalf of the official Opposition.

Sir William Clark: Speak up.

Mr. Foulkes: I have never had that complaint before. It must be irony, even at this late hour. I had not expected the debate to be this late, but here we are.
First, on behalf of the Opposition, and I am sure on behalf of all hon. Members, I sincerely congratulate the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) not only on tabling the new clause but on speaking so passionately and in such an informed, relevant and convincing way, which is much more than we can say for the speech of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman).
I also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the almost unique feat of uniting the official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats, the liberal Tories and the not-so-liberal Tories. If I were the Minister, who sat tolerantly and patiently through the Committee's proceedings, I would feel that not just the arguments, but the weight of support for those arguments is on our side—or, I should say, on the right hon. Gentleman's side.
The Minister may recall that in Committee the Opposition tabled a number of amendments along the lines of the new clauses and the amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), who is taking a well-earned rest, argued the case convincingly. I thought that the Minister had taken the arguments and had understood and appreciated the concern among hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, now expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The Opposition did not table the amendments on Report because the right hon. Gentleman was in before us and we thought that a former Cabinet Minister, a distinguished member of the Conservative party, would have greater weight with the Home Secretary and the Government.

Mr. John McFall: Stop buttering him up.

Mr. Foulkes: I try my hardest—we want to win something. We hoped that the arguments of those hon. Members would have some effect upon the Government.
We went through all the arguments in Committee and we got some assurances, but like the right hon. Member for Southend, West we do not consider those assurances adequate, and nor do concerned expatriates and the other groups representing widows or potential widows in Hong Kong.

Mr. Marlow: I hope that I am not interrupting the flow of the hon. Gentleman's speech and that I have intervened at the right time. It will be interesting for the House to know at this stage whether the hon. Gentleman will be voting for the amendment and, if so, will his party be with him?

Mr. Foulkes: I am hoping that there will be no need for a vote. I hope that the weight of the argument and the

force of the speech by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris)—who put a convincing case in an honest and sympathetic way—and the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Southend, West, the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats will convince the Government, and that there will be no need for a Division. It seems wasteful when the arguments are so overwhelming.
The essential point is that people are still worried. Despite the assurances, or because of the specific and limited nature of the assurances, given by the Minister and repeated again today in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), hon. Members are still worried that those widows, who are vulnerable in a number of ways, will still have to go through the hoops of the primary purpose rule to obtain entry to and citizenship of the United Kingdom.
If that is not the case, it is up to the Under-Secretary of State to say so, because that remains our understanding of the position. If widows are going to be accepted, there is no reason why the Government should not accept new clauses 4 and 5.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Let us suppose that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is unable to accept the amendments. Why is the hon. Gentleman unable to bring his party with us through the Lobby to ensure that this valuable amendment is made?

Mr. Foulkes: We shall have to wait to see whether a Division is called. If the Government are not convinced, we shall see what happens. I am surprised that a Conservative Member with such a distinguished military tradition should be giving in so easily, and that he should be so unwilling to press the case on the Government. I am surprised that an hon. Member who is normally so loyal to the Government should be so desperate or worried that the Government will not accept the logic and sense of the arguments, and that they will not recognise the overwhelming support for the new clauses.
We are talking about a small group of people—a few hundred. Hong Kong is a territory—I prefer the word, although some people use the term "colony"—for which we have a special responsibility. We are testing the sincerity of the Government over this group of widows, who have more right than any other group of people included in the scheme to entry into the United Kingdom and to citizenship. They have supported their husbands, often in the service of the Crown and the territory of Hong Kong. They are worthy of our support.
I hope that the Under-Secretary is feeling some unease at the way in which he has been criticised from all sides today, and at the fact that pleas have come from both sides of the House for him to accept the new clauses. With the Home Secretary beside him, I hope that he has all the authority and approval that he needs to be able to say that he accepts the new clauses. Then some honour and dignity will have been sacrificed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sacrificed?"] It is late. I shall try again. Then some honour and dignity will have been salvaged from this debate.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) are both proposing, albeit in different ways, that spouses and widows of British citizens resident in Hong Kong should be granted British citizenship, but I am afraid, as they expected and as I explained in Committee, that the Government do not believe that such a provision in the bill could be justified.
It is central to our proposals that existing nationality principles should continue to operate normally, except in relation to the 50,000 key personnel selected under the Bill and their immediate families. On that point, at least, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) was right in predicting my reaction, but no doubt he had read what I said in Committee.
The whole basis of the British Nationality Act 1981 is that the acquisition of citizenship should normally involve a period of residence in this country. For the spouse of a British citizen, that period of residence is three years instead of the normal five. It is designed to ensure that the non-British spouse has some links with the United Kingdom, independent of marriage. The amendment would represent a fundamental departure from that principle.
My right hon. Friend suggests that there is cause for concern about the position of non-British spouses in Hong Kong. I listened with great care to what he said. Yesterday my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I met my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West and the chairman of the Concerned British Expatriates Society. I regret to say that I do not think that they made out a case for British expatriates in Hong Kong to be regarded as a special case compared with British expatriates elsewhere in the world.

Mr. Foulkes: There are two overwhelming arguments why their case must be considered separately. First, the Bill deals specifically with Hong Kong. Secondly, it is a dependent territory, not a separate country. Surely those two arguments must convince even this Government.

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that they do. The only distinction that can be made relates to those expatriate citizens in Hong Kong who are married to non-British wives. They are concerned about their widows, should they die, because Hong Kong's status will change in 1997. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend gave the assurance that he did on Second Reading.
We understand and sympathise with the very natural anxieties that have been expressed. I say again that, after careful consideration, we are sure that the expatriates' anxieties are groundless. I should like to take a few moments to explain how the position of spouses of British citizens is safeguarded. The spouse of a British citizen can accompany the British partner to the United Kingdom for settlement at any time. Of course they have to satisfy the requirements of the immigration rules, which include the primary purpose and the maintenance and accommodation requirements, but it is wrong to suggest that these reasonable and universal requirements under our immigration laws pose a significant difficulty for Hong Kong's expatriate families.
We have done some research, and the figures speak for themselves. Last year, for example, according to the most

recent statistics, 269 spouses of British citizens applied for settlement from Hong Kong; only four were refused. None of those four was the spouse of a British citizen who was resident in Hong Kong.
The Government accept that there is legitimate concern that spouses having no right of abode in a third country might become stranded in Hong Kong in the event of the death of the British partner. In the unique circumstances of Hong Kong, it is natural that the expatriate community should be anxious about the position of widowed spouses, and with some reason. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has therefore given an assurance that applies specifically to British citizens in Hong Kong, that the widowed spouse of a British citizen who was resident in the territory at the time of his or her death will be allowed to settle here as a concession outside the immigration rules.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) asked about the primary purpose test. As the spouse will have died, the ordinary primary purpose rule could not apply, and we would not seek to apply it. So the concession is there for widows who fall into that category.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister saying that there will be no problem in the case of the widowed spouses to whom we are referring, that they will be allowed freely to enter the United Kingdom to settle, and that there will be no immigration problems?

Mr. Lloyd: That is the undertaking. The only question may be whether the spouse is the widow of a British expatriate citizen. The identity of the person and their relationship by marriage to a former British citizen will be matters that it would be reasonable of an immigration officer to ask to be demonstrated. But there should be no difficulty with that.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister saying that all that those widowed spouses will have to produce, in effect, is proof of marriage?

Mr. Lloyd: Proof of marriage and proof that the person to whom they were married was a British citizen resident in Hong Kong.

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend's remarks will be studied with immense interest in Hong Kong, so I would like to get this straight. Is not his assurance limited to widowed spouses who have no other citizenship? Therefore, in the case of a United Kingdom citizen having a non-United Kingdom spouse who is not Hong Kong Chinese but who might be Japanese, Filipino, Thai, or whatever, that spouse would not be covered. What assurance is there for those widows?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend is right. Such widowed spouses were not included in the assurance given by my right hon. and learned Friend. However, we should like to consider some of the further points that my right hon. Friend has raised.

Mr. Foulkes: We welcome the Minister's assurance that such widows will have to produce proof only that they were married to a British citizen—such as a marriage certificate—and a death certificate. That presumably means that the Government have abandoned—we welcome this—the primary purpose test. It will be interesting to know what powers the Government are using to do so.

Mr. Lloyd: It would be difficult to apply the primary purpose rule if the lady's husband has died. The authority lies with my right hon. and learned Friend, under the 1971 Act, to use his discretion and to allow entry outside the rules. Helpfully, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) echoed that undertaking, saying that it would be carried forward if there was another Labour Government.

Mr. Madden: May we be clear whether the widowed spouses in question will be allowed to enter the United Kingdom for settlement, or merely permitted to enter and be required subsequently to make an application for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Lloyd: I am trying to remember the exact terms of my right hon. and learned Friend's undertaking, but I believe it is for settlement. Within a certain period those people will then be able to apply for British citizenship, and there is no question but that their entitlement will be to come here and stay here.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) the Minister appeared to say that this would not apply to widows who had another citizenship. What will happen to someone who has children at school in this country and who has had no connection with Indonesia, Thailand or wherever? He or she will be cut off and stranded.

Mr. Lloyd: If such people have another citizenship, they will have that connection. As I told my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, that is a point which my right hon. and learned Friend and I want to look at again. I have been trying to make it clear that the assurance that my right hon. and learned Friend has given applies only to whose who have no citizenship other than British dependent territories or Hong Kong—and hence Chinese—citizenship.

Mr. Marlow: The intention behind the Bill is to anchor people in Hong Kong, and the intention of the new clause is to anchor some worthy but potentially unfortunate people in Hong Kong. If people are given their British citizenship now, they know they have it, and whatever else happens, they will be able to use it. But if a spouse were to die after 1997, when a Chinese regime was running the country, they might fear some difficulty in acquiring British citizenship at that stage. Thus the desire of the Government and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) to anchor these people in Hong Kong will not be achieved unless the new clause is accepted.

Mr. Lloyd: If I understand my hon. Friend aright, my answer is that there is no limit to my right hon. and learned Friend's assurance: it will apply up to and after 1997.

Mr. Wells: Just for the sake of clarity, will my hon. Friend reiterate that this will not apply in other dependent territories, of which there are quite a few in the Caribbean?

Mr. Lloyd: It applies only to Hong Kong, for which we make this exception because we understand the worries of expatriates in the colony who fear that their wives may be stranded there after 1997. Hong Kong is a special case in that respect. I could not concede the earlier amendments

because I do not believe that Hong Kong can be described as a special case before 1997, in respect of living British expatriates and their wives.

Mr. Tebbit: I ask my hon. Friend to contemplate the arguments that he has been deploying this evening. In response to many points put to him, he has argued that the Bill is designed not to bring immigrants to the United Kingdom but to give them an assurance that will obviate the necessity for them to come here. But on this particular point, my hon. Friend says that we cannot give these people the assurance of a British passport while they are still in Hong Kong; we must make them come to Britain and live here for three years before they can apply to get one.
Does not my hon. Friend realise that, with each word he has said while defending himself against the reasonable points put to him today, he has hammered another intellectual nail into the shabby coffin of this rotten Bill?

Mr. Lloyd: Of course I do not accept that. British expatriates, confident in their British citizenship, are not in the same position as those who are not British citizens but will become so under this Bill. I recognise that the Bill, in granting immediate access to British citizenship to the spouses of the 50,000 key persons, would be treating them more favourably than the spouses of other British citizens, but it is inherent in our proposals that the beneficiaries of the Bill will receive favoured treatment.
11 pm
I can appreciate the understandable irritation of British citizens with non-British wives that the normal rules should continue to apply to their wives when there is an express service for the spouses of those chosen under the selection scheme, but the House will be familiar with the justification for it. I have said several times this evening, and it was said in Committee and on Second Reading, that the Bill is an exceptional measure directed at a specific group of people, who by definition are essential to Hong Kong and are leaving in large numbers. Those people, unlike the spouses of existing British citizens, have no well established route to the United Kingdom or anywhere else. We feel that a different approach is justified.
If spouses and existing children are excluded from the assurance package, as proposed in some of the amendments, some recipients would still feel the need to emigrate to secure the position of their families. Some of the amendments make illogical suggestions that would drive away those whom we wish to remain in Hong Kong. The rules applying to the non-British wives of expatriates would not do that.

Mr. Norris: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is clearly implied in the scheme for 200,000 passports that it would not be enough to grant only the head of household a British passport and expect the rest of the family to rely on the rules that he has outlined as they apply to non-British spouses, and that that rule will apply to one category of people—those who are now British citizens? If that is indeed the Government's position, it is extraordinarily anomalous.

Mr. Lloyd: It is not extraordinarily anomalous because, as I said earlier, the expatriate British citizen will have the confidence of the British citizenship with which he was born and the knowledge that British citizens, as long as they satisfy the normal immigration rules, can bring their


wives here. There is no such confidence among people who have been given citizenship under the scheme, and to protect the investment that we are making in them, we are extending, it beyond the normal rules to their wives and children.
Even my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) would accept that, although those who obtain British citizenship through the selection scheme could, like a British expatriate, bring their wives under the same terms, it does not apply to children who have been born to them when they were not British citizens. Somehow we must deal with that. The good sense of what we are proposing is to make a clean sweep, to enable them to be confident that their family has British citizenship, and to give them the confidence they need to remain in Hong Kong.
The Government are approaching this logically. The under-age children of people who obtain British citizenship through the selection route would, unless citizenship were granted to their families at the same time, be tempted to move here to ensure that their children earn British citizenship by being here for sufficient time before they reach the age of 18. After 18, under our normal rules, they would not be eligible.

Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend make the position tatally clear to the House? There are two gentleman, one of whom is a British citizen with a non-British wife and the other, who will be given one of these passports by the Governor and will become a British citizen, who also has a non-British wife. Both couples have no children. Is my hon. Friend saying that the wife of the first gentleman will not automatically become a British citizen, whereas the wife of the second gentleman will automatically become a British citizen?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend has followed the argument reasonably well and I am glad that he has been able to demonstrate that fact. I said—my hon. Friend did not repeat this part of the argument—that this legislation is a special enactment for a unique set of circumstances. It cannot follow our normal nationality rules, and that is why it is different. The same rules apply to people in Hong Kong who have been born British citizens and have moved abroad as apply to those who live in Borneo, Indonesia and the United States. I do not believe that the case has been made for treating them differently. I am afraid that I must therefore urge the House to reject the new clause.

Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary for receiving the deputation. It was very helpful, and my hon. Friend will have been made aware of the worries that still exist in Hong Kong. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about widows, which may foreshadow some concessions.
I think that I carry the House with me when I say that no hon. Member supports the Government's view on spouses. On the Conservative Benches, those who support the Bill and those who are against it are against him. Everyone on the Opposition Benches—Labour Members and the Social and Liberal Democrats—is against him. I shall be surprised if this matter is not fully debated in another place.
My hon. Friend said that this was a unique set of circumstances which justifies the wives of these people getting passports too. I claim that it is a unique set of

circumstances for British citizens and their non-British spouses. I have failed to convince my hon. Friend, which places me in a difficulty. I have no particular desire to divide the House or rebel against the Government, but I am in the hands of the House. If hon. Members wish to press the motion to a Division, I shall join them.

Question put, That the clause be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 98, Noes 253.

Division No. 232]
[11.07 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Livsey, Richard


Alton, David
Loyden, Eddie


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
McAvoy, Thomas


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McFall, John


Beckett, Margaret
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Bermingham, Gerald
Maclennan, Robert


Bevan, David Gilroy
Madden, Max


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Marek, Dr John


Budgen, Nicholas
Marlow, Tony


Butcher, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Michael, Alun


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Carr, Michael
Murphy, Paul


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Nellist, Dave


Clelland, David
Parry, Robert


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Patchett, Terry


Cryer, Bob
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Quin, Ms Joyce


Dalyell, Tam
Robertson, George


Darling, Alistair
Rogers, Allan


Dewar, Donald
Rooker, Jeff


Dixon, Don
Rowlands, Ted


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Sedgemore, Brian


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Skinner, Dennis


Fearn, Ronald
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Fisher, Mark
Spearing, Nigel


Flynn, Paul
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Strang, Gavin


Foster, Derek
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Foulkes, George
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Fraser, John
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Gill, Christopher
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Turner, Dennis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Wallace, James


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Wareing, Robert N.


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Howells, Geraint
Winnick, David


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Winterton, Nicholas


Janman, Tim
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine



Kennedy, Charles
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kirkwood, Archy
Mr. Rbodri Morgan and Mr. John Hume Robertson.


Leighton, Ron





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Bellingham, Henry


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Allason, Rupert
Benyon, W.


Amess, David
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Arbuthnot, James
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Ashby, David
Boswell, Tim


Atkins, Robert
Bottomley, Peter


Atkinson, David
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Baldry, Tony
Bowis, John


Batiste, Spencer
Brandon-Bravo, Martin






Brazier, Julian
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Bright, Graham
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hunter, Andrew


Burns, Simon
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Burt, Alistair
Irvine, Michael


Butler, Chris
Jack, Michael


Butterfill, John
Jackson, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Carrington, Matthew
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Key, Robert


Chope, Christopher
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Churchill, Mr
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Knowles, Michael


Conway, Derek
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lang, Ian


Cope, Rt Hon John
Latham, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Lawrence, Ivan


Couchman, James
Lee, John (Pendle)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Curry, David
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lilley, Peter


Day, Stephen
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Devlin, Tim
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Dorrell, Stephen
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Eggar, Tim
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Emery, Sir Peter
Maclean, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fallon, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Favell, Tony
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Malins, Humfrey


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Mans, Keith


Fishburn, John Dudley
Maples, John


Forman, Nigel
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Forth, Eric
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Mates, Michael


Fox, Sir Marcus
Maude, Hon Francis


Franks, Cecil
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Freeman, Roger
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fry, Peter
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mellor, David


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mills, Iain


Goodlad, Alastair
Miscampbell, Norman


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gorst, John
Mitchell, Sir David


Gow, Ian
Moate, Roger


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Monro, Sir Hector


Grist, Ian
Moore, Rt Hon John


Ground, Patrick
Morrison, Sir Charles


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hague, William
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Needham, Richard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Neubert, Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholls, Patrick


Hannam, John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Harris, David
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Haselhurst, Alan
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hawkins, Christopher
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayes, Jerry
Paice, James


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hayward, Robert
Patnick, Irvine


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hill, James
Portillo, Michael


Hind, Kenneth
Price, Sir David


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Raffan, Keith


Holt, Richard
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Redwood, John


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Rhodes James, Robert





Riddick, Graham
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Thornton, Malcolm


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Thurnham, Peter


Rost, Peter
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rowe, Andrew
Tracey, Richard


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Tredinnick, David


Ryder, Richard
Trippier, David


Sackville, Hon Tom
Trotter, Neville


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sayeed, Jonathan
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Walden, George


Shelton, Sir William
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Waller, Gary


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Warren, Kenneth


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Watts, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Whitney, Ray


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Widdecombe, Ann


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wiggin, Jerry


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wilkinson, John


Squire, Robin
Wolfson, Mark


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Stern, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Stevens, Lewis
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)



Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Tellers for the Noes:


Sumberg, David
Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. David Lightbown.


Taylor, Ian (Esher)



Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 9

UNIVERSAL FRANCHISE

'The Secretary of State shall not register any British citizens under this Act until such time as the membership of the Hong Kong Legislative Council is elected by universal franchise of all Hong Kong citizens over the age of 18 years.'. —[Mr. Foulkes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 50, in clause 5, page 3, line 19, at end insert—
'(4A) The Secretary of State shall not make such an order until after an election has taken place in Hong Kong for the Legislative Council in which over 50 per cent. of the members are directly elected, by adult universal suffrage.".

Mr. Foulkes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause is completly different from the other measures, which were intended to try to bring some much-needed improvements to a bad scheme in a bad Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) amply demonstrated earlier. The new clause is a device to initiate a debate on democracy in Hong Kong. It serves to reaffirm our view that the Government are approaching the matter of confidence, stability and prosperity in Hong Kong in entirely the wrong way.
We do not accept that giving a bolt hole to an elite group in any way resolves the fundamental problem of confidence, which affects all the people of Hong Kong, whether they are British dependent territory passport holders or whether they are covered by the scheme. The Government should approach the matter in an entirely different way.
The correct approach is to deal with the matter as a foreign policy issue, as a diplomatic issue, and not one of nationality or of immigration. A full, vibrant and active democratic system in Hong Kong is one of the three essential elements to our approach. I shall return to that point in a moment, because it is the substance of our new clause.
We should also work for a reaffirmation by China of its belief in one country, two systems. We and the Chinese should remember that that means communism and democracy—not just communism and capitalism. Democracy is an essential part of the other system that will continue in Hong Kong as part of the one country, two systems process. The Government of China must be encouraged to indicate by their words and, more important, by their deeds over the next few years that it remains in their interests for Hong Kong to be in much the same form as it is now—a gateway to the western world. That must be the case, whatever the complexion of the Government of China.
Recent signs of internal conflicts among the octogenarian leadership in Peking increase the prospects of changes between now and 1997, almost any outcome of which is likely to be helpful to Hong Kong. However, we recognise that, should that not be the case, we must have a fallback position. Should a crisis develop in Hong Kong, there will be an international responsibility to find a haven for Hong Kong citizens in countries that have traditionally received immigrants from the territory. Britain, however, must take the lead in ensuring the effectiveness of such a safety net provision.
At a time when democracy has replaced the tyranny of dictatorship in most Latin American countries, and when universally in this House we greatly welcome democracy replacing the oppression of communism in eastern Europe, is it not absolutely outrageous and ridiculous that the British Government are resisting the introduction of full democracy in a territory for which we have direct responsibility? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) conceded in our debate on 19 April, successive Governments of both parties are culpable in this matter. Some cynicism from China about our motives, or those of some of us, for being enthusiastic about democracy is understandable.
It is true that for some time the majority did not demand democracy in Hong Kong, but that does not diminish or detract from the case for full democracy or from the strong and overwhelming desire now within the colony for full democratic development. That was already growing when I visited in 1988. The Government's failure then to respond to pressure from Hong Kong and from the Labour and other opposition parties gave the wrong signals to Peking. Instead of asserting our right to govern until the end of June 1997, we were perceived to be willing to kow-tow to the Government of the People's Republic of China. The Minister denied that in Committee, but, whatever he says, we were seen to be giving the Government in China an effective veto over our decisions in a territory for which we have responsibility until the end of June 1997.
At times, the Government have suggested that the people of Hong Kong are not sophisticated, intelligent, able or articulate enough for full democracy. That has been suggested from the Dispatch Box and from the Conservative Benches. It is manifest nonsense to anyone who has visited Hong Kong or who knows of the vibrant

democracy of the local elections for councils which have relatively little power—indeed, even less power than councils in Britain have under this Government.
The Government have argued that the joint declaration does not give a specific guarantee of full direct elections. However, it says, even in respect of the special administrative region after 1997, that the legislative council shall be constituted by elections. What do we understand by elections, other then direct elections and the universal franchise of all adults over 18? The device of functional constituencies is a mere fraud on real democracy and involves only a small percentage of the people of Hong Kong.
There was also a widespread perception within the territory after the signing of the joint declaration that there would be a start made to direct elections in 1988. That did not take place. Yet in Committee the Minister quibbled about whether the figure should be 18 or 20 out of the 60 seats, arguing that 18 was nearly 20 and that the difference was neither here nor there.
In February, the Foreign Secretary spoke of a substantial element of democracy which can endure and further develop after 1997. The Opposition believe that all members of the Legislative Council should be directly elected as quickly as practicable. Indeed, that was the recommendation of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs chaired by the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell).
We also believe that the Chief Executive. who is effectively the Chief Minister of the Hong Kong Government, should also be elected by universal adult franchise. He or she and the Government should have their responsibility directly to the legislature clearly spelled out.
11.30 pm
We also believe that political parties should be not merely allowed but encouraged to operate freely in Hong Kong as quickly as possible. Incidentally, we deplore the recent arrests of political activists involved in demonstrations for democracy in Hong Kong. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government also deplore those arrests and are taking action with the Governor and the Government of Hong Kong to secure proper justice for those people.
We also see no reason why the franchise should be limited to people over the age of 21 when the voting age in Britain, throughout the European Community and in most democratic countries is 18. As we heard in an earlier debate, it is the age accepted for categorising dependent relatives. We would like to see the voting age for Hong Kong elections reduced to 18.
We would also like to see constituencies of roughly equal size. At present, one constituency is twice the size of another because of some arithmetical division.

Mr. Maude: What about Scotland?

Mr. Foulkes: In Scotland, the constituencies are all roughly the same size.
Although I personally warmly welcome the decision that the voting system for the colony is to be similar to our own, that might not find favour with all my colleagues.
Democracy in Hong Kong is vital to give new, deep, long-term confidence to all the people of the territory. It is necessary to provide the balance to and control of the capitalist system. It is an essential element of the second


system within the one country, two systems set-up of China after 1997. Democracy in Hong Kong is essential to provide maximum protection of the freedom and liberties of the people.
We believe that the Government are heading down the wrong road with the Bill. I have outlined again today, as my colleagues did on Second Reading, a positive alternative to deal with confidence in Hong Kong. The new clause seeks to postpone the introduction of the Bill's provisions until an essential element of democracy in the territory is tackled. I have pleasure in commending it to the House. Even more, it provides us with an opportunity to discuss an important element for the future of Hong Kong —the establishment of a full, vibrant, active democracy essential for its future.

Mr. Wells: Both China and the British Government are treaty bound to introduce elections to the legislature and elect the chief executive by 1997, so the introduction of democracy to Hong Kong has been settled despite much objection from some of my hon. Friends who claim that it is not necessary. They say that Hong Kong has existed without democracy, has been successful without it and needs to continue without it. I believe that a moment's thought given to that idea will dispell it.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) set out the reasons why democracy should be by universal sufferage. I entirely agree with him. However, without delaying the House too long at this time of night, I want to take the argument a stage further. The fact is that in Hong Kong we must replace the British Government and its officials in the form of the civil servants who play the role of Ministers in the legislature and we must make certain that all the instruments of democracy are in place so that the capitalist system can be controlled.
However, I further believe that, without the democratic process being in place, capitalism will not work; it will descend into monopoly, corruption and chaos. Only with the accountability that is necessary to and imposed by a democratic system will Hong Kong continue to work after 1997. I believe that, with democracy firmly established, there is every reason to be confident that after 1997 Hong Kong will be successful.
However, we in this House should know that democracy is one of the hardest systems to make work. It demands some commitment from every single elector—even if only putting a ballot paper in a box every five years. If that was all that democracy was, of course, it would not be sufficient for Hong Kong, which must develop ways to gain support for measures taken by the legislature. The idea must be established that when a majority in the legislature is in favour of a particular item, the minority who fail to win—as it looks as though those of us who hold these views will fail to win tonight—will accept and abide by the majority decisions and the rule of law.
Such concepts take a great deal of time to root. I have had experience overseas and have found that many educated and privileged people—those principally to whom we are seeking to give 50,000 passports, and many more—are the most reluctant to take part in democracy or to breath life into the democratic institutions that must be established. That is because previously they have been privileged and have had access to powerful positions and

they do not know how to proceed. They are afraid of going out to do what we do quite naturally—knocking on people's doors and asking them to vote for us; taking account of their views and reflecting them in the legislature; and trying to gain the consent of the community for the actions that we wish to be taken.
That process must take place as soon as possible if those institutions are to have enough credit and respect, and be cherished by the people of Hong Kong and made to work. Unless we get that system of democracy firmly established —and the earlier, the better—there will be every reason to lack confidence in the future of Hong Kong after 1997. That future will depend on whether the institutions that I have described have been put in place, have support and are working. If that happens, it will give us confidence to believe that the two systems and the second—the capitalist —system can work in Hong Kong.
That is why it is essential that we urge, push, barge and do everything that we possibly can to get my hon. Friend the Minister to go back to the Chinese and say, "This is essential. We agreed it in principle way back in 1984 and we are telling you that unless this is established and unless we agree with the pace at which it will be established"—now agreed by OMELCO in Hong Kong—"you are putting in serious jeopardy confidence in Hong Kong up to and beyond 1997."
There is much more to the democratic system than I have spelt out in my short speech, and I shall list only some of its facets. We need a Bill of Rights in place. We need to make certain that the legal system in Hong Kong is truly independent of the Executive and is independent of the People's Republic of China. There must be the right of final determination of the rule of law and of the matters that arise in Hong Kong at a democratic level. We need to ensure that in Hong Kong the Chief Executive is not a creature of the People's Republic of China. He must be genuinely elected and independent. He should be accountable to the legislature and able to be dismissed by it. There is a necessity for the Chief Executive, under the treaty, to be approved in Peking, but unless he is Hong Kong's man through the democratic process and not the man of the People's Republic of China, there cannot be confidence that Hong Kong can be truly independent of the People's Republic of China and able to run a capitalist system without interference.
There is much more to be said on this subject but the hour is late and I intend to be brief. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends, the People's Republic of China and all those in Hong Kong to cherish democracy and the capitalist system. There will be 5·5 million who will stay in Hong Kong whether or not the Bill is enacted. For their future, for confidence in Hong Kong and for business men there, we must establish democracy. The purpose of my amendment is to bring that democracy into line with the OMELCO wish that at least 50 per cent. of the legislature should be directly elected. The functional constituencies that are proposed will represent only 1 per cent. of the electorate yet they will have a majority in the proposed legislature up to and beyond 1997.
For those reasons I welcome the assurances that were given in Committee and those given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that he would try to get further progress on these matters from the Chinese before the election in 1995.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: It is a pleasure for me to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells). Like the hon. Gentleman, I am a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, and I agree strongly with the views that he expressed. We may have disagreed about some aspects of the Committee's report, but on the matters that are now before us there was virtual unanimity among members of the Committee.
It was a privilege to be a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howells) and to visit Hong Kong and China at a crucial moment. Our visit took place a year and a month or two ago, when many of the issues that we have been discussing were on the boil. We were able to hear the line of the Hong Kong establishment on democracy. We were told that the people of Hong Kong were not really interested in democracy. That was the fundamental message. It was said that they were interested in making a living, economic activity and entrepreneurial activity, and were not really interested in the concept of democracy per se and the idea that they might take part in a direct and westernised way in the democratic affairs of society.
That seemed not to accord with the views of many of the people that we, the members of the Select Committee, met. I am talking not of OMELCO or of the establishment but of a considerable number of people, including young people, who had served or were serving at local level. They sensed and felt that there was a democratic spirit and a growing desire for genuine participation in political activity within Hong Kong in whatever peculiar form that might be discovered by Hong Kong. There was something much better and more important than the establishment line that we were being sold from the highest level.
We might—even then—have felt some doubts about how far the argument would prevail, and about the extent of the spirit of democratic involvement in Hong Kong. All the myths were finally exploded, however, when the people of Hong Kong associated themselves with the students in Tiananmen square. Already we had seen the awakening of democratic participation, but, after Tiananmen square, no one could continue to argue that Hong Kong's political society was wholly inert.
11.45 pm
The Government's response to some aspects of the Select Committee's report—not those concerning issues in the Bill, such as immigration, but those raised in the new clause— was pretty banal; disgraceful, indeed. The Select Committee made two unanimous recommendations which proved to be the main areas of contention. First, it recommended the establishment of a series of safeguards to protect many of the agreements that would make the special administrative constitution so special. The Government have not dealt with that recommendation: they did not establish constitutional courts, for instance.
At least the Government could defend themselves in that regard by arguing that the matter was part of the Chinese Basic Law, and that all that they could do was to make representations. In my opinion, they did not make enough representations, but they have, as it were, an alibi. They have no such alibi to justify their failure to develop a democratic system in Hong Kong between now and 1997.
We do not need to obtain agreement from the Chinese Government to decide the percentage of people who are directly elected to the Legislative Council in the next seven years. That is the joint responsibility of the Hong Kong and British Governments. Other aspects of our recommendations required skills of persuasion and negotiation to achieve changes in the Basic Law. There again, the Government failed. The Minister shakes his head, but there were several unfortunate failures. The achievement of democracy in Hong Kong, however, is not a function of the Chinese Basic Law; it is for Parliament, following the agreement between Hong Kong and Britain, to decide how democratic Hong Kong's institutions should be between now and 1997.
The Government's loss of negotiating nerve will, I fear, have tragic consequences. We saw the courage of all those young people who, in Peking just over a year ago, took on the might of the Chinese authorities and suffered for it. We have seen that courage repeated a year later in Chinese universities. What guts it must have taken for hundreds of students to stand up and be counted a second time. I am sorry to say that the Government have been gutless. They completely lost their negotiating nerve when it came to developing democracy in Hong Kong between now and 1997.

Mr. Walden: Let me put to the hon. Gentleman a question that I asked earlier. How can he reconcile the accusation of gutlessness over democracy with the accusation of recklessness vis-a-vis Peking over 50,000 Chinese citizens?

Mr. Rowlands: I make the simple point that one area in which we do have power over the affairs of Hong Kong between now and 1997 is in deciding how democratic its institutions will be. For us to sell the pass so badly is an act of gutlessness.
The fundamental reason given by the Government was the so-called mirror imaging and through-track that they wanted. They wanted events and institutions after 1997 to be akin to the events and institutions before 1997. I must tell the Minister that, from the Chairman downwards, the Select Committee rejected that philosophy completely. We argued strenuously that there were genuine areas where we should not attempt mirror imaging or a through-track, and that there were areas where we should establish bridgeheads of responsibility so that after 1997 the Chinese Government would have to decide whether they wanted to dismantle or change the system and its institutions. One area where we could have established a real bridgehead between now and 1997 was in the democratic institutions in Hong Kong. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's point is fairly irrelevant.

Mr. Walden: The hon. Gentleman says that my point is irrelevant, but my point is fundamental and it has been consistently evaded by the hon. Gentleman. It concerns the power relationship between Britain, as represented by our responsibilities in Hong Kong, and the People's Republic of China. The hon. Gentleman's entire speech has been delivered in a political vacuum. It is not simply a matter of what Britain wants. All hon. Members know that we want democracy in Hong Kong. But we cannot have the sort of democracy that we want as soon as we want it because of the power relationship between China


and Britain. There has been no hint in the hon. Gentleman's speech of that reality. Therefore, it is completely without interest or relevance.

Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman reflects the Foreign Office establishment. He prompted me to make that remark. I would not have done it otherwise. But as he wishes to exchange an insult or two, I shall give him one back. If the hon. Gentleman had given me a couple more minutes, I was about to say that we are in a strong position when it comes to democratic institutions. There was a loss of negotiating nerve. If a system of democracy far greater than the one proposed by the Government and accepted in the negotiations with the Chinese had been accepted, it would have put the Chinese Government on the spot in 1997.
However great their power, would the Chinese Government in 1997 signal to Hong Kong, to its capitalist system, to the international community and to everybody outside China, that it wanted to dismantle the democratic structures in Hong Kong? What sort of signals would have gone out? How much would confidence be shaken if the Chinese Government were to say in 1997 that they would dismantle the democratic structures that had been created in Hong Kong? The British Government are in a much stronger negotiating position, as they will be between now and 1997, if they decide to establish a wider democratic system within Hong Kong, with the support of the Hong Kong people.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) is wrong, because although the Basic Law is within the powers of the Chinese Government and we would have to make representations to try to change such laws, this arrangement is within our power. It can be decided by the Hong Kong and British Governments. Therefore, the Government are in a stronger position.
The answer to the intervention by the hon. Member for Buckingham is this: if we establish a more powerful and a better democratic system in Hong Kong, will it be in the interests of a Chinese Government to signal to Hong Kong, Britain and the international community in 1997 that it does not believe that those democratic institutions should exist? Would they reverse decisions taken by the British Government and the people of Hong Kong? That is why we have every right to say to the Government and to Ministers that between now and 1997 they should for goodness' sake change their minds, and have some courage and some guts, at least as regards establishing democratic institutions in Hong Kong.

Sir Philip Goodhart: Of course I am in favour of democracy, but it is worth recalling that the British Government, soon after the second world war, had plans for introducing democracy into Hong Kong. The moment the communist armies reached the frontiers of Hong Kong, those plans were put on ice, and they have never been revived by any British Government.
The plans were put on ice for one good reason: if there were democratic elections in Hong Kong, it would put the Government in Peking into a difficult position. They would either have to accept a democratically elected anti-communist Government in Hong Kong, or they would have to use their best efforts to ensure that

communists were elected. Therefore, democracy was put on ice for years. That holds true for the position now, post-Tiananmen square.
If we accept new clause 9 and move rapidly to full universal democracy in Hong Kong, the Communist Government in Peking would have to use their best endeavours to ensure that communist and pro-communist candidates were elected. Otherwise, it would be an intolerable loss of face. At the same time, the Government of Taiwan—I am chairman of the Anglo-Taiwan parliamentary group—would, I suspect, be using their best efforts to ensure that anti-communist candidates were elected.
Far from producing stability, which is what hon. Members who support the amendments want, the introduction of universal democracy in Hong Kong at the moment would bring universal disorder and would set back the cause of stability.

Mr. Budgen: On a point of order Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask for your permission to move, That the debate be now adjourned.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. It is not a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to be called. I shall certainly look his way.

Mr. Budgen: I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a motion that I am prepared to contemplate at this stage.

12 midnight

Dr. John Marek: These are important matters that deserve the fullest consideration. Earlier in the debate, an hon. Member declared an interest as an officer of one of the parliamentary groups. I should therefore declare that I am the vice-chairman of the British Hong Kong parliamentary group.
I support amendment No. 50 and new clause 9, which I prefer. I agree with what has been said about the new clause and the amendment. Most of the points have been made, but one significant point has not yet been made: that the Government are planning to sell Hong Kong down the river in 1997. The purpose of the Bill is to enable the Government to retain some semblance of order and government in Hong Kong until 1997 when they will cheerfully be able to say, "We are lowering the union jack, we have all our boats ready to sail away, our aeroplanes are ready to fly away from Kai Tak airport and we will have nothing further to do with Hong Kong." In decades to come, it will be seen as one of the most shameful episodes in British colonial history. We are preparing to hand over 5 million or 6 million people to a totalitarian, non-democratic Government, to shed a lot of crocodile tears and to excuse ourselves by saying that we can do nothing about it. We cannot allow ourselves to be duped in that way.
All that we can do is to support amendment No. 50 and new clause 9 and to give self-government to Hong Kong straight away. We should allow them to negotiate with Peking. There is no substitute for democracy and free expression—whether for the people of Hong Kong or China, or for the people of Lithuania and Latvia. I find it


difficult to understand how some Conservative Members can justify their stance on independence for the Baltic states, in view of their craven stance on Hong Kong.
Other hon. Members share my views. Therefore, I ask the Minister to take note of what hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the new clause and amendment No. 50 have said. Under the Basic Law, as drafted, the chief executive will be a puppet of Peking. The legislature will be under Peking's control. If hon. Members care to read the small print of the Basic Law, they will find that that is so. The only way to get round the problem is to have self-government for Hong Kong as quickly as possible so that the people of Hong Kong can decide either whether they wish to be just one part of China under its present non-democratic system or whether they wish to negotiate a slightly different form of agreement with China. That should be done by the people of Hong Kong; it should not be done by us.
Above all, we should not be prepared—which is what the Bill is all about—to sell Hong Kong down the river in 1997, with as little fuss as possible for the United Kingdom. It is absolutely shameful that the Bill is before the House tonight.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I support the new clause and the amendment to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) spoke so ably.
I pose this question to the House: what value democracy? I entirely endorse the views of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). We on this side of the House eulogise democracy, promote democracy in central and eastern Europe, and encourage President Mikhail Gorbachev to implement a meaningful democracy in his country. We sought to aid the Filipino people in getting rid of their ex-president, President Marcos—now deceased— and we encourage that part of the world to adopt a proper, meaningful, democratic parliamentary system—full adult suffrage.
What is the difference between some of those countries and Hong Kong? For years, I have urged the South African Administration to urge all the population groups in that country to adopt a one-man, one-vote system. Whether that is done in a unitary state or in another system does not matter.
I believe in full adult suffrage, and I am amazed, saddened and personally disgusted that we, the British nation, are prepared through our Parliament to hand over a country for which we have been responsible for many decades to—as the hon. Member for Wrexham rightly reminded the House—a totalitarian system, with the memory of Tiananmen square still very fresh in our memories.
I personally believe that the best way of guaranteeing the future for all the people now in Hong Kong is to give them a full, 100 per cent. democratic system well before 1997. I support the views expressed by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who is a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. I share his belief that the Chinese Administration is unlikely to seek to reverse what we have done. As he reminded the House, we have the authority and the right to implement a democratic system in Hong Kong. One hundred per cent. of the Legislative Council should be fully elected by 1997 —in my view, by 1995. Why do I say that? How do I justify that belief?
I do not believe that the People's Republic of China can do without the technology of the western world. It cannot do without the investment that the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Japan and other countries are prepared to pour into it, if it is to survive and make progress. I say exactly the same thing about President Gorbachev.
When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made her statement yesterday, I was fortunate to catch Mr. Speaker's eye to ask a supplementary question. If perestroika and glasnost are to survive, and if President Gorbachev is to survive to carry through those policies, his country's economy must be put in order. President Gorbachev cannot do that without the assistance of the western developed nations. The Chinese leadership also need the help of the western developed nations to take their country forward.
We have the authority, the opportunity and the moral duty to ensure that the people of Hong Kong have a system of full adult suffrage, so that they can elect 100 per cent. of the membership of the Legislative Council by 1995 —well before the date in 1997 when we hand over their sovereignty to the People's Republic of China.
Can my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench say where else we have given, as it were, independence or relinquished responsibility for a country, and not sought first to put in place a proper democratic system and grant the vote to its adult population? I find it difficult to do so. I remind the House that we have handed over power in many countries where the people were far less able to exercise the vote in a responsible and knowledgeable way than the people of Hong Kong.
We are using double standards. I share the views expressed by the hon. Member for Wrexham: we are indeed selling out the people of Hong Kong. I am ashamed to be involved with a Government who are taking this action. Why do we want to get rid of what we see as an unpleasant responsibility? The only reason for introducing the Bill, which, sad to say, I fear will become an Act, is to get out of a difficult situation with a minimum of honour. This is a disgraceful way of handing over the sovereignty of a country—of a colony that has been very loyal to this country and whose people look to us for the lead and the example that we have given the rest of the world for so many years.
The people of Hong Kong are disgusted by the treatment being meted out to them. The Government can boast of the discussions that they have had. When I was last in Hong Kong, the people told me that they had had no meaningful consultation at the grass roots with any Government of the United Kingdom. They said that the Government did not want to talk to the millions of ordinary citizens. They are prepared to talk to one or two selected establishment figures, but to imagine that they speak with the true voice of Hong Kong is to live in a different world.
My colleagues on the Government Front Bench may sit there smirking, thinking of the majorities that they have notched up so far during the passage of the Bill, but I still believe that there is some honour left in this House I shall not mention colleagues by name, but I prefer to match my votes to the words that I utter during a debate. This place derives its credibility and the respect that it has enjoyed in the past precisely from that. We undermine respect for this place by not speaking our minds and then by not voting along the lines of what we have said.
It is odd to find myself sharing almost entirely the views of Opposition Members, although my views are also shared by one or two of my hon. Friends. This is a shameful incident in parliamentary history in this country. We are passing a Bill that will affect the lives of 5·5 million people virtually without their having had any meaningful say in what will happen to them. As a result of the Bill, most of the 50,000 heads of families—225,000 people in all —will leave Hong Kong and come to the United Kingdom. Some will also go to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan and a number of other countries.
I should have been much happier if we had implemented full adult suffrage in Hong Kong before we handed over sovereignty. That would have given the people in the colony, who are concerned about their future, a say in it. It would have been the best safeguard to ensure that the vast majority of them—including those in commerce and education, and the high fliers and entrepreneurs—stayed in Hong Kong, thus guaranteeing the future of all the people, their prosperity, and their contribution to the People's Republic of China, and preserving the major role that the territory has played in the far east for so many years.

Mr. Maclennan: When the hon. Member for Macclesfied (Mr. Winterton) speaks about honour, I am reminded of the words of Tennyson:
His honour rooted in dishonour stood,
And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true.
The hon. Gentleman's wrapping of the union jack around himself and the proclamation of his commitment to democracy carries little weight when he is not prepared to respond to what the people of Hong Kong have asked for.
The people of Hong Kong have a more realistic assessment of what democracy means as defence against tyranny. They have seen other countries trampled under foot. They remember, if the hon. Gentleman does not, how the democracy that was coming back to life in Czechoslovakia was rolled out by the tanks from the east. There was an elected democracy in Czechoslovakia when Jan Masaryk was thrown from the windows of his Foreign Office. To talk of democracy as a defence against the People's Republic is total self-deception.
The reality is that new clause 9 is the fig leaf put forward by the Labour party to cover the nakedness of its response to the demand from the people of Hong Kong for the security that they thought they would enjoy by being British citizens, albeit cut-down British citizens, as holders of British dependent territory passports. They thought that it would be reasonable to turn to this honourable country to see those passports made good and for a right of full British citizenship. If the hon. Member for Macclesfield had been prepared to support the people of Hong Kong in that plea, we might have listened to his jingoism and plea for democracy with greater enthusiasm, and perhaps even sympathy.
The reality is that the Government have chosen to look not at the symbols but at the power structures in the orient. They have tried to decide what they can do to move Hong Kong towards a more democratic system of government than there has been in the colony under successive parties in this country. They have made a cautious judgment that

they can move at a certain rate, with the acceptance of the Peking Government. They are also trying to hold out the prospect that Hong Kong will be a prosperous nation in 1997.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: With all its people here.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman should have listened to the hon. Member for Epping when he spoke of evidence that he had seen in Hong Kong, which revealed that 1·8 per cent. of the people of Hong Kong wanted to come to this country. They are not interested in coming here, save as a last resort.

Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) did not vote.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman can carry his quarrels with Conservative Members into another forum. I do not propose to intrude on them.
The evidence given by innumerable hon. Members, in debates which the hon. Member for Macclesfield did not attend, was that the people of Hong Kong are not seeking to flock here. The argument of the Liberal Democrats is that we should respond to the demands of the people of Hong Kong, not because they would take up these passports but because they want security in the event of the catastrophe of 1997. If the hon. Member for Macclesfield wants an honourable solution to the problem, he should listen to that argument.
I will not detain the House at this late hour, because these arguments have been trawled before, but I cannot support new clause 9 or amendment No. 50, which are merely a diversion designed to deflect attention from the unwillingness to offer the people of Hong Kong that which they want—the right of British citizenship. The fact that these proposals are made with such vehemence will not divert people from the reality. If the new clauses were accepted, they would postpone, beyond any realistic date, the possibility of any scheme being introduced to establish the security of the people whose presence in Hong Kong is so necessary to its commercial and industrial strength. In that strength lies its only hope of salvation from takeover and subjection.

Mr. Maude: I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) spoke in those terms and tones. He rightly reminded us that these matters are of profound importance for the future of the nearly 6 million people who look to us for help and support and for whom we in the House are responsible. It is therefore too great a matter for large phrases to be thrown round quite as lightly as my hon. Friend did.
The Government have at no stage pretended or argued that our proposals in the Bill are the sole answer to questions about the future of Hong Kong. We have always agreed with the view, which has found consensus in the House, that democracy matters to Hong Kong, that we want the process of democracy to be advanced and to take place more quickly than was generally believed to be the case a year or even two years ago. To argue, as my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) did, with a casual disregard for the realities, and to say that there is an easy, quick answer, that we could move rapidly to total democracy, that all the problems would be solved and that the Hong Kong people would rise up in gratitude


to a large-minded House of Commons, is the cruellest deception that could be practised on the people of Hong Kong, and we will have no part of it.
Of course we agree that there should be further democracy. We argued strongly that the Basic Law, which will come into effect on 30 June 1997, should include more democracy than the previous draft, and it does, although not dramatically so. The argument in the new clause is that we should move immediately to introduce 100 per cent. democracy. In a way, I agree with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) that the matter is entirely within our sovereignty. We have no alibi. The People's Republic of China has no power to veto it. Of course we could have done this and of course we still can.
We could introduce those elections in 1991 or 1995, and it would make us feel terrific about ourselves. Playing it over in my mind, I can imagine how the hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and for Wrexham and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield would laud us and say how courageous we had been for standing up to China. But it would not make the slightest difference to the reality, because the law that will operate in Hong Kong in July 1997 is not a law introduced by the House of Commons but one introduced by the People's Republic of China. There could have been this brief orgy of full democracy for seven years, brought in in the certain knowledge that it would be immediately dismantled by the People's Republic of China. If we had done that, I do not believe that we would have done any service to the people in Hong Kong who look to us for a reasonable approach, and we shall not do it.

Mr. Wells: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to make two points before we finish the debate.
First, it is clear from the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) that there are difficulties in the introduction of direct democracy, as my hon. Friend the Minister suggested. But Hong Kong is committed to elections; it is committed to democracy by the treaty that we signed in 1984. Perhaps events will turn out as they certainly would have done in 1955, when I first lived in Hong Kong and when the nationalists and the Chinese communists were fighting in Nathan road, Kowloon and I had the misfortune of trying to part the two warring camps. But I think that the present situation is different: the People's Republic of China has made a commitment to democracy in Hong Kong and will permit it to work. The Chinese said as much to the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee when we visited Peking.
That means that there is no question of there not being a democracy, and a democracy of a kind has been agreed anyway. The first direct elections will take place next year; further elections will take place in 1995, and they will carry Hong Kong, through 1997, to a further election. We are in the process of establishing democracy anyway. What is important is that we should establish it early, to allow it to take deep enough roots to minimise or preclude the type of influence to which we have referred.
Secondly, the Bill seeks to give 50,000 passports—it will possibly be 250,000 passports in total—to leading members of the Hong Kong community so that we can retain their services in Hong Kong at least until 1997. I believe that British citizenship is a privilege. Those who enjoy that privilege may stay in Hong Kong until 1997; it is more doubtful that they will stay after 1997. During the

period in which we are trying to establish democracy so that Hong Kong can continue for the next 50 years as a capitalist democratic enclave in the People's Republic of China, it is precisely those people who must give the lead and create and breathe life into the democratic institutions and make them work. They must make those institutions accountable and make them the bodies that stand against the executive and the other economic powers in Hong Kong. They will create the powerful and prosperous future that I dearly wish Hong Kong to have. The Bill will undermine that process.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: My hon. Friend referred to an "orgy of democracy". We have watched eastern Europe crumble as people have asserted basic freedoms and rights—representative government and the defence of their interests and lives. We have promoted that argument. Foreign Office representatives have gone round cheering for it and the House has cheered for it; our people have recognised the spirit of the claims of the people of eastern Europe and have also cheered for them.
We have no constitutional responsibility for eastern Europe but we have observed and cheered for developments there. I personally cheer for them, and the House—which owes its very existence to those basic rights and freedoms—cheers for them. Yet now the Minister refers to an "orgy of democracy" in a country where we do, indeed, have constitutional responsibility. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) said, we are committed to the process, although it will fall outside our competence once we resign our responsibilities, on the accession of that criminal conspiracy in Peking which is called the Communist party.
The one gift from their inheritance that the British Government, British institutions and the British people can pass on to Hong Kong is a respect for the rights of individual citizens to determine their futures—for however long our competence over that may last. I suspect that the conspiracy that we saw march into Tiananmen square last year will also march into Hong Kong if the regime has not changed by 1997. The banner of a free people expressing themselves in their own representative institutions may well do something to help to change the balance of that great and mighty nation, China.
We therefore should not be scornful. The very phrase "orgy of democracy" should haunt us. We should be proud of our inheritance; that is all I argue. I support the Government on the Bill. I do not like the circumstances that brought us to it, and I do not like its consequences, but I argue that the Government are doing the honourable thing by trying to acknowledge that decent and reasonable citizens in peril should be given some guarantee of safety to enable them to continue and to allow the survival of the colony in its present form.
That is why I support the Government. I deeply regret that the Government have not moved to give representative Government to the people of Hong Kong. I regret that, because that is the very spirit of our inheritance and it is the last thing that we can offer to the world.
I will vote against the new clause, because to tie the proposal to another condition is ridiculous and absurd. However, the concept that we should be returning representative government to the people of Hong Kong is wholly honourable and reasonable. That is something that


I would have liked this Government, whom I support, to hold as a constant banner in our arrangements in this matter.

Mr. Foulkes: There could be no finer end to this debate than the speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd).

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend's speech contained no comfort for the Opposition.

Mr. Foulkes: There is comfort for the Opposition in the hon. Gentleman's speech, as the Minister will discover in a moment.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has great sincerity and shows great courage in the kind of Bills that he brings before the House and in the way in which, on occasions, he votes in the House. We respect him and he was right to take the Minister to task.
We have had an interesting debate and, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) discovered, at times quite a passionate one. I intend to deal with two points raised by the Minister. He gave a false account of what the Opposition have said on this issue. He said that we were talking only about democracy and then he knocked that down. Of course, it is easy to knock down something that is one's own account of what was said and not what actually was said.
We did not say that democracy would ensure that all the problems would be solved and that it was an easy, quick answer. If we had said that, it would have been a cruel deception. We said that democracy was one element that is essential in helping to restore confidence. That is not an easy, quick answer. The Minister did himself no credit by criticising us on that front.
The Minister made an astonishing remark. He went further than he did in Committee and claimed that we were pursuing our proposal in the certain knowledge that it would be dismantled by China. How can he say that? He was more cautious and less outrageous in Committee. According to the joint declaration, in the special administrative region, the Legislative Council would be constituted by election. The Chinese have said that. That is a principle about which so many people feel strongly that we should stand by and challenge the Government of China on it. If we had the courage to do that, we would win.
The rather emotional intervention of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland gave us an insight into the conflict over his party's joint agreement, during which he came to blows over the dead parrot of a joint agreement. That is a serious issue and the hon. Member for Macclesfield treated it as such. He made a sensible speech, but was attacked in an emotional and, I believe, unsustainable way. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland described the new clause as a fig leaf for the Labour party's position. He implied, as the Minister did, that the Labour party was concerned only with the issue of democracy.
If the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland has listened to my speech, he would know that I also spoke about the importance of China reaffirming its commitment to the one country-two systems process. I also described

the importance of China retaining its window on the western world. I spoke also about the international safety net if there is a crisis in the colony. In no way is that a fig leaf. It is an element in our alternative plan in relation to confidence in the future of the colony. As it happens, it is also unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman choose the fig leaf metaphor, because I am about to take the fig leaf away.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: What is underneath it?

Mr. Foulkes: I dread to think of the visions that that metaphor conjures up for Conservative Members. [Interruption.] The Minister reads my mind. I can only thank higher beings for their existence at the Dispatch Box.
The new clause has well served the purpose for which it was tabled. We have had a good debate on democracy. The purpose of tabling the new clause was to allow that debate to take place. Whatever the Minister may say, the contribution by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills was not an embarrassment to the Opposition. He rightly said that the new clause is effectively a wrecking measure. It links the principle of democracy to other aspects of the Bill that we have tried to improve. We have deliberately taken a constructive approach in Committee and on Report.
The message about the importance of having democracy in Hong Kong as quickly as possible has got across, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Budgen: moved, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned, but MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 34 (Dilatory motion in abuse of rules of House), declined to propose the Question thereon.

Clause 1

ACQUISITION OF BRITISH CITIZENSHIP

Mr. Marlow: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 6, leave out '50,000' and insert '10,000'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 4, in page 1, line 6, leave out '50,000' and insert '5,000'.

No. 14, in page 1, line 6, leave out '50,000' and insert `20,000'.

No. 15, in page 1, line 6, leave out '50,000' and insert `30,000'.

No. 16, in page 1, line 6, leave out '50,000' and insert '40,000'.

No. 48, in page 1, line 24, at end insert—

`( ) The Secretary of State may by order amend subparagraph (1) by substituting a higher figure for the figure for the time being specified there if the Governor recommends that it is necessary to do so in order to maintain the stability of Hong Kong or the safety of its residents.'.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have a series of amendments—the numbers amendments. On the face of the Bill, the Government have a figure of 50,000 heads of household passports to be issued. The amendments refer to 5,000, 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 and 40,000. I believe, because I have read it—I should have found it hard to believe otherwise—that there is also a Liberal amendment to increase the number.
Not long ago we had an important debate on abortion. A series of amendments were called on a pendulum basis —one after the other. I am wondering how we can deal with voting on these amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be far better if the hon. Gentleman spoke to his amendment. We shall see how we get on during the debate.

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your undertaking.
Amendment No. 3 is a numbers amendment. A famous parliamentarian once said on the issue of immigration that numbers are of the essence. The Government have plucked out a figure—I am not sure whether it was out of the ether or elsewhere—of 50,000 as being the number of passports that they believe would satisfy the situation in Hong Kong and secure the continuing residence in Hong Kong of people who are essential to the well-being of the colony. As the House will know, it is the view of many of my hon. Friends that the issuance of those passports will not ensure that the people who have them remain, but that they take the first plane or boat out to re-establish themselves, their careers, their families and their financial fortunes elsewhere.
When we consider the numbers, we must take a careful look at the present circumstances in the United Kingdom. The past generation or so has seen a massive immigration of people of different backgrounds, cultures, religions, nationalities and ways of life into this country. I am much the same as many other hon. Members, in that I do not believe that our way of life, religion and culture is any better or worse than that of anybody else. Nevertheless, man is a tribal animal. Labour Members would say that man is a racist animal. They say that I am a racist. I do not know what they mean by that. If I am—and probably 90 per cent. of the population agree with my views—they are saying that 90 per cent. of those whom they want to vote for them at the general election are also racists.
If one brings in people of different races, cultures and backgrounds, to coin the word used by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, one swamps localities with people of different backgrounds and the indigenous population whose families have resided here for generations will feel that their identity is being threatened. That does not happen only in the United Kingdom. One does not need to read the book when one can look at the picture. It is happening now in the Soviet Union.
There is a massive racial strife between the Asiatic republics there, because people from different backgrounds and cultures were put together in republics, to a large extent by the centralised bureaucracy of the Soviet Union. For 70 years they have been suppressed by Soviet communism, and now that that repression is no longer applied the old antagonisms are re-erupting, although they have been living together for two or three generations.

Mr. Alex Carlile: What is the hon. Gentleman talking about?

Mr. Marlow: If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to make a speech in a moment, I am sure that the House—

Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman is trying to compare the conditions in the United Kingdom with those in the Soviet Union. Is he not aware that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people were transplanted in the Soviet

Union from one part of that union thousands of miles to another and that they were forced on the people in the places where they were settled? How on earth can he make an honest comparison between those entirely different circumstances?

Mr. Marlow: People in the Soviet Union have been transported from one part to another—

Mr. Carlile: Transplanted by force.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right. They were transplanted. They migrated from one part to another. People of different races and backgrounds have been living in various parts of the Soviet Union not for generations, but for centuries. The German communities in the Soviet Union have been there since the time of Catherine the Great. Although people have been there a long time, the ethnic differences still—

Mr. Carlile: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should send the Welsh back to Caernarvon?

Mr. Marlow: If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to take part in a debate for children, let him find it elsewhere. This is a serious matter, which requires proper consideration by the House.
Problems arise between proportionately small communities of different backgrounds and cultures. The sum of the parts is greater than the whole because there is an element of cross-fertilisation. If sufficiently large ethnic minority communities, almost colonies, are transplanted or come of their own free will, the indigenous people feel that their identity is being threatened. Before we address ourselves to the number of people whom we allow in—people of different races, cultures and backgrounds, estimable, worthy, successful and articulate though they are and people with whom individually we may get on well —let us consider the present conditions here. It may riot worry us here. We may be relatively wealthy, relatively well-off and live in relatively comfortable surroundings, but it worries some of our constituents. We certainly ought to take account of that.
There has been mass migration of people of different cultures to this country, and we all know that the bulk of our constituents resent it. We all know in our bones that we ought to have done something about it, but we all know that to have done something about it at the time would have appeared illiberal, unpleasant and intolerant and therefore we stood back from doing it. We have let communities accumulate in this country knowing that it was against the desires, interests wishes, deep feelings and soul of the people of our country. Yet still we have been negligent enough to let it happen. We shall let it happen again if the Bill goes through the House.
The Government say that 50,000 heads of household will be issued with passports. With families, we can gross that up to 225,000 people—a quarter of a million people perhaps. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) believes—I do not agree with him—that, if the Bill is allowed to go through, all those people will not come here because all they really want to do is to stay in Hong Kong. He believes that everything will turn out right in China and that they will not feel the pressure to come out of Hong Kong, so they will all stay.
I do not believe that, but even if I did, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) said on an earlier occasion, if one issues an insurance policy one must


take account of the fact that one might have to deliver, one might have to pay the bill, one might have to cough up. We are talking about a quarter of a million people. Those people will have friends, relatives and families in Hong Kong, and if things are unpleasant and there are pressures in Hong Kong and people want to get married from Hong Kong they will want to come to Britain.
We know how it is with the Asian sub-continent. We are better off in this country. There is more wealth here than there is in Asia. We know that and are grateful for it. Because of that, there is migration and families come together. But they tend to come together in one direction, quite naturally. They tend to come together in the United Kingdom where the wealth is and where people will be better off and will make better livings for themselves. If dark days surround the future of Hong Kong, the quarter of a million Chinese who come to this country will accumulate here their friends, relatives, spouses and their family from Hong Kong.
So we are talking about not a quarter of a million but perhaps half a million people added to the 4 million people of different culture and ethnic background who are in this country. They are lovely, excellent people, but different people. The indigenous population, rightly or wrongly, feel threatened by that. If we wish well for the future, that is something that we must take into account.
We might like to feel that, through race relations legislation, the Commission for Racial Equality, good will and education, everyone will love one another and come together. That might happen; but it might not. The history of the world to date does not give us great cause for optimism.
I do not want to delay the House for long, but we really ought to look at some of the statistics. I know that it will be greatly offensive to members of the Liberal Democratic party because they do not think that these things matter. It may matter to their constituents, but it does not seem to matter to them.
Let us consider schools. In the Inner London education authority, more than half the children are of non-European ethnic origin. In 1987, in the London borough of Tower Hamlets, almost half the schoolchildren were from Indian sub-continental ethnic origin. They are mainly Bangladeshi, of course. That is not a mixed, thriving, integrated community of people working together; it is a colony. How will the people who live round about react to that? If 50 per cent. of the people who live in the area are from Bangladesh, the people who are not from Bangladesh will move away and more people will move in from Bangladesh. They have large families. Why should they not have large families? The tendency will be that the proportion will increase from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. I predict that within a relatively short period Tower Hamlets will effectively have become not a Bangladeshi community, but a colony within the United Kingdom.
How are we going to deal with that? How will we deal with the pressures and problems that have arisen since the Salman Rushdie affair began? I hope that we can, but can we guarantee it, and until we can guarantee it, does it make sense to allow a quarter of a million or half a million more

people—worthy, estimable, pleasant, splendid and educated though they may be, but of a different culture, race and background—to come to this country?
I think that that would be madness—I really do. It is irresponsible. We all pride ourselves that through that irresponsibility we are being decent, honest and liberal, but we are not. We are building up a store of problems for our children.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have been listening closely to the hon. Gentleman. What does he think would happen in Hong Kong if the Government were not to make this concession? What does he think that the impact would be on the professional bodies and the Administration generally? Has he thought about that? Could he make a prediction about that in as informed a way as he has made his most recent predictions?

Mr. Marlow: As I said earlier, although we have responsibility for Hong Kong, our main commitment and responsibility is to the people—the electorate—of this country—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Answer.

Mr. Marlow: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's question. He knows me well enough to know that I will answer.
As we have said before, we disagree with the Government's proposal to offer people passports because it will encourage them to get out while the going is good and to take their families out early. We have been conned by the sophisticates, the gilded yuppies and the upper classes of Chinese Hong Kong. I believe that they will see themselves right and get out while the rest will have to stay behind. Seeing the privileged and the elite leaving Hong Kong will cause a greater problem for those who remain in Hong Kong and for Hong Kong itself than would be the case if the captains—the leaders—of Hong Kong were to stay. I believe that they will leave. If we did not have the Bill, I believe that they would be more likely to stay.
It was said earlier, "Why leave Hong Kong if you have an income tax rate of 15 per cent. there?" I believe that if we were not encouraging them to leave by this legislation, they might make a go of it and stay—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that when I repeatedly asked people in Hong Kong whether they would come here and they said, "No, we want to stay as long as possible; we do not want to leave," they were deliberately misleading me and that I was conned and fooled by them?

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman had what conversations he had with a lot of people, but it is my belief that, if people in Hong Kong wanted to sell this measure to the British Government, politicians and public, they would not say, "If you pass this Bill, we shall leave Hong Kong," because we would smell a rat. They are far more likely to say, "Of course, if you pass this, you will keep us in Hong Kong." The hon. Gentleman has made his assessment and I have made mine.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Were we conned?

Mr. Marlow: Time will tell—[Interruption.] Yes, I think hon. Members were conned—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman is surely naive.

Mr. Marlow: Well, that is the hon. Gentleman's opinion.
The Bill will not do Hong Kong any good. As others have said, it is the only ship on which the captain gets off first and leaves the crew and the women and children behind until last. The Bill looks after those who would otherwise be able to look after themselves, and those who cannot look after themselves will be forced to remain in Hong Kong. In military terms, it is not what one would call "leadership by example".
Although I do not want to detain the House, I shall bore hon. Members with a few more statistics. The latest statistics on births in inner London show that half those births are to people of non-British ethnic origin. In Greater London, the proportion is 40 per cent. of all births—

Mr. Alex Carlile: So what?

Mr. Marlow: The hon. and learned Gentleman says, "So what?" The hon. Gentleman for Workington has been throwing words such as "naive" around, but I am not naive; to say "So what?" to the fact that half the babies born in our capital city are of non-British origin is incredibly naive.
I had a grandfather who was born and brought up in London; he died in London 25 years ago. If he returned to London now, he would not believe the evidence of his eyes. He would not think that he was in Britain. He would hardly think that he was on the same planet. If that has happened over the past 25 years, what will happen to our capital in the next 25 years? What does the hon. and learned Gentleman think will happen? What will be the future stability of Britain? What will happen to Britain's identity? We have mixed loyalties and different cultures. It is true that they are thriving, lively and exciting, but what will they do for peace in our nation? I believe that we have a tiger by the tail, and I am sad that the Government will add to our problems.

Mr. Maclennan: My amendment, No. 48, is grouped with amendment No. 3, which was moved by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) but the purpose of the two amendments is entirely different. The intention behind amendment No. 48 is to enable the Governor to bring forward proposals to raise the ceiling from 50,000 persons if, in his judgment, it is necessary to do so for the maintenance of stability in Hong Kong or for the safety of its residents.
The Minister will know that I moved an amendment in Committee to seek to give all holders of dependent territory citizenship the right of abode in this country and the right to full British citizenship. That is the basic view of my party and my parliamentary colleagues on how Britain should respond. We have not altered our judgment following the debates that we have heard, but we have recognised that the policy will not be endorsed by the Government. Among the reasons why are the views of those who share the opinions of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). There is a spectrum of views on the Government Benches, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman constitutes one end of it. It is appropriate that, in a debate on numbers, we should hear the views that are held by the two ends of the spectrum.
Conservative Members found themselves in some difficulties during a debate about the wives of British citizens. It seemed that, in replying to the debate, the

Under-Secretary of State conceded that a time would probably come when all the 50,000 passports had been issued and nothing could be done about the wives of British citizens under that head. It seemed that the Government had no means of coping with that problem. Those wives of British citizens would have to be left until the curtain dropped in 1997, when no doubt they would be able to apply for asylum if they felt themselves threatened.
One of the benefits of accepting amendment No. 48 is that it would provide for the possibility of dealing with the problem of the wives of British citizens within the compass of the Bill. I am talking about a few hundred spouses. There are other reasons for seeking to provide a degree of flexibility to the Governor and to the Government. If the scheme is to have a major impact upon public opinion in Hong Kong, it must be introduced quickly. It must be introduced for most of the 50,000 if it is to have any impact on the areas of the economy, which are most threatened by the evacuation of skilled, talented and educated people who are the key to maintaining the economy.
That practical concept has little to do with equity; it has nothing to do with justice. It has much to do, however, with trying to keep the wheels turning in Hong Kong. If it is to have that effect, it must be implemented quickly, and that has been accepted by the Government. Nevertheless, considerable problems will be created. If all the places are allocated and the circumstances change, I do not see why the Government should have to come back to the House to try to alter those circumstances through primary legislation, month—or years—later, when they need only accept the amendment now to ensure that the Bill's purposes are not set at naught.
1 am
The Government say that, having taken advice in Hong Kong, they consider 50,000 an acceptable figure because some people have come round to that view. When I was in Hong Kong after the Tiananmen square massacre—along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)—the figures that we heard were nearer 350,000. Different groups have come up with different suggestions, but all the figures have been larger than that proposed by the Government. Given that people are leaving Hong Kong at the rate of about 1,000 a week, I do not think that the Government can be so sure that they have got it right.
All I ask is for the Government to retain the degree of flexibility that will enable them to react to the judgment of the Governor, in whom they have placed so much trust, and to move quickly and appropriately. They need not resile from their view that 50,000 is the right number; they can stick to it, and reassure Conservative Members that they believe it to be right. It would, however, be helpful if they would admit the possibility that it is not right.
If further primary legislation is needed, I feel that the schemes in general will be brought into considerable disrepute. In any event, I doubt whether such legislation could have the same impact as the Bill.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North made an extremely interesting speech, and I have no doubt that he was sincere, but I cannot believe that he really speaks for Britain. He claims that 90 per cent. of the public agree with him, citing as evidence the divisions in Tower Hamlets. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that an election was held in Tower Hamlets recently, and that the party returned to run the borough is the party to which I have


the honour to belong, and not the hon. Gentleman's party. In the light of that result, the hon. Gentleman's example struck me as peculiarly inapposite.

Mr. Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: No; I am dealing with one Member at a time.
I find the views of the hon. Member for Northampton, North about the Englishness of being English singularly provincial. In the mid-1950s, my constituency in the north of Scotland experienced an influx of Englishmen who spoke with accents that seemed more exotic in Caithness than the accents of Hong Kong would seem in Tower Hamlets. They did not belong to the same established Church. They came up to work in a nuclear research establishment and do foreign, exotic and, some thought, dangerous things, for money. They have been assimilated. The accents are a little more alike now. Generations pass.
But it is not only English people who have come up to my constituency and been assimilated. There are some Bengalis too, and the children speak with strong Caithness accents and execute the highland fling with at least as much panache as the descendents of the Mackay of Mackay. The reality is that time is the factor that the hon. Gentleman leaves out of account.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The hon. Gentleman is helping to make the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). The number of English who have gone up to Scotland is comparatively small and, as the hon. Gentleman said, has been properly assimilated. But he might like to reflect on the difficulties in Northern Ireland between the Scottish settlers and the Irish people who were there before them.

Mr. Maclennan: I speak about what I know. The population of Caithness rose substantially and the town of Thurso trebled in size, as a result of an injection of almost entirely English blood in the middle 1950s. That was a sudden demographic change of a massive kind which had the potential to cause enormous disruption, but it did not.
If one is seeking to argue this matter on the basis of culture, one is getting into rather dangerous territory. The reality is that we live in a world that is increasingly small and mobile, where the difference and diversity of backgrounds is a positive advantage. It is a cause not of diversion but of delight. The fact of some tens of thousands of people coming from Hong Kong to Britain cannot be regarded by me or my right hon. and hon. Friends as a tragedy or a threat. It would create a dynamism in those parts of the country which were fortunate enough to be the receiving point which even the Government might welcome.
We approach such matters from a different philosophical and historical point of view. I do not imagine for a minute that I will take the hon. Member for Northampton, North very far with me down that road, but let him not speak as though he spoke for Britain. There are other points of view.

Mr. Janman: I shall not detain the House long. I assure my hon. Friends that I am sincere in that intent. But before I make my two brief points on the amendments, I want to expose the hypocritical drivel of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) when he referred to Tower Hamlets.

Members of the Labour party in the borough of Tower Hamlets are most irate and sincere in their criticism of the local Liberal party for the racist campaign that they consider the Liberals have fought on more than one occasion in borough elections in Tower Hamlets. I believe that I am right in saying that the Liberal party in Tower Hamlets has been taken to task by the Commission for Racial Equality for its housing policies. There has certainly been wide criticism of the Liberal party in the borough of Tower Hamlets, basically because the Liberal council puts Bangladeshis at the back of the housing queue. Many accusations have been made against the Liberals, so let us not have any more of that convenient principled Liberal party purporting to the House that it has a consistent view on such matters. One has only to go to Tower Hamlets to see the true face of the Liberal party.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Gentleman is not noted for his ready acceptance of propaganda coming from the extreme left, not just the extreme left of the Labour party but from extremes far to the left of that. Why does he now choose to believe extreme left propaganda, as opposed to the verdict of the electors of Tower Hamlets who have supported a Liberal Democrat council which in extremely difficult circumstances, with strong Bangladeshi support, has managed to build a community which he would have sought to send back to the Indian sub-continent?

Mr. Jarman: I was not seeking to criticise the electorate of Tower Hamlets, and it is not only the Labour party in the borough which has made such criticisms—there have also been criticisms of the housing policy there from neutral quarters—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where? Name them."] I am seeking to expose the hypocrisy of the comments of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, given the policies that his party has pursued in Tower Hamlets. If the people of Tower Hamlets wish to endorse those policies, I do not criticise that. It is a matter for the electorate there.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 seek to reduce the number of passports being issued to heads of households to 10,000 and 5,000 respectively. The first point, which has been made at considerable length by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North, is that, frankly, the number of 50,000 in the Bill is totally unacceptable to the British people. I put it on record that I endorse a great deal of what my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North said.
The second point is that there is a logic to the amendments. Section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981 rightly gives a clear commitment to senior Crown servants in Hong Kong, who could potentially be at risk after 1997 if things turned sour in the colony. Therefore, if a Bill is passed by the House to amend that Act, it is not inconsistent to refine, guarantee and restate a commitment in law to a number of people which arithmetically would be roughly equivalent to those who are already covered by section 4(5) of the 1981 Act.
I briefly endorse the accurate remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North. I believe that he speaks for the vast majority of people in this country. Certainly the vast majority of my constituents hold the same view. It will not surprise the House to hear me standing here tonight to support those views and to put forward the fears of my constituents.
The hour is very late, but I urge the House to support the amendments in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North and other hon. Members.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall intervene for a few moments in the debate because I have some sympathy with the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). It is not an amendment which I would have supported a month ago, but I feel in principle that one could support the amendment today, if one has talked to people in Hong Kong about these issues.
As so few hon. Members have had the opportunity to discuss with people in Hong Kong what their real intentions are, the House is perhaps not in a position to make a valid judgment on these matters. The truth is that many people do not wish to leave, will resist leaving until the last minute and will do so only in the most extreme circumstances.
In the course of one conversation, I found myself asking someone what kind of conditions would have to exist for them to finally want to leave. The scenario that they painted was one that even I found quite inconceivable. It seems that most people believe that the Chinese Government will seek to find some accommodation with the people in Hong Kong, if only to safeguard their commercial interests over the border in China, where a huge economy has developed in the special economic zone which has been set up by the Chinese authorities. It is utterly reliant on Hong Kong for the export of goods and their shipment to the rest of the world. The special economic zone provides substantial revenue for the Chinese Government.
Exactly the same happened in Macau. It was put to me when I was in Macau that the Chinese may want to develop support there, too, by giving Macau an element of independence so as to secure their own commercial interests. The Chinese are thoroughly pragmatic. They take a sensible view of what is in their best commercial interests. All I can do is to pass on what I was told while I was there. Even people who previously took a hard line found that their view had substantially changed after meeting people out there.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Does the hon. Gentleman not think it peculiar that, after having made this enormous trawl, he did not find a single person who would leave now, even though thousands are leaving every week?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I referred earlier to the reasons why many of them are leaving now. Some countries have set up reception arrangements that require people immediately to take up the right of abode in the receiving countries. It is not that they want to move; it is that, if they accept the right of abode in Canada, they have to exercise it within a matter of a few months. Many of them would much prefer to stay in Hong Kong for many more years, having established a right of abode in Canada, and to exercise that right of abode only in the very worst conditions.
I drew the House's attention to the fact that a class of people are developing in Hong Kong who are called the astronauts—people who have immediately accepted the right of abode in Canada because of the nature of the offer. They have moved their money, in part, to Canada, but

they have left much of it in Hong Kong. Having set up businesses in Canada, they have returned to Hong Kong to manage their businesses there, in the hope that one day they may be able to return to Canada. They have located their assets outside Hong Kong in such a way as to secure their assets for the future.
That is a perfectly human response. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland referred to the fact that 1,000 people are leaving Hong Kong each week. I hope that hon. Members will not therefore conclude that they are necessarily leaving because they are desperate. In the main, they are leaving only because of the offers that have been made, not only by Canada, Australia and New Zealand but also by a number of other countries in south-east Asia. The most liberal country in south-east Asia in terms of acceptance arrangements is Singapore. The Government of Singapore have offered flexibility. People drew my attention on a number of occasions to the Singapore arrangement, since it provides for a delayed right of abode.
The problem is that many people have not, unfortunately, had the opportunity to discuss these matters in detail with the people who live in the colony. The majority want to remain there and are determined to do so, but they are worried about losing their assets. They also hold a social position in the colony. People aspire to a social position in all societies, and very often it is underpinned by their personal wealth. Having acquired that position, they are unwilling to lose it. Those in Hong Kong are simply trying to establish a bolthole, to secure their assets outside Hong Kong, while at the same time providing a reasonably secure future also for their families.
I wish that more people had had the opportunity to share my experience, for it would have greatly affected their contribution to this debate. I am not bought off with trips. I went to Hong Kong holding a fairly hard line, and during my visit—for which the Hong Kong Government paid—I argued the case made by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). Wherever I went, I pointed to the debate in this country based on an interpretation of the issue in terms of immigration as against assurance. I confess that, after a week out there, I had to change my view. There, the question is not seen in immigration terms but in terms of consolidating the residents' position and making sure of their futures.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: The remarks of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Cambell-Savours) were very perceptive and showed why the Government believe that the legislation is not to do with immigration but designed to give key people who have an opportunity to leave Hong Kong the confidence to remain there. That is the Bill's objective, and the hon. Member for Workington summed it up very well.
It is clear that there is no particular logic in the different figures that my hon. Friends suggest should be inserted into the Bill. They have not argued for any of them, except perhaps those relating to Crown servants. I suspect that they merely sought an opportunity to argue that the Government simply plucked the figure of 50,000 key people out of thin air, but they did not succeed.
As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland surmised, the Government held extensive consultations with the Government and people of Hong Kong, and


many in the United Kingdom who know Hong Kong made representations about the form that the assurance policy that the Bill represents should take.
Of course those in Hong Kong want the Bill to allow for a much larger number, and that is understandable. We looked at rates of immigration within the occupational groups and examined the evidence supplied by many of the groups themselves. Having carefully studied the occupational profile of Hong Kong's working population and the balance between the public and private sectors in the colony's economy, we then had to make a judgment.
The assurance package had to cater for a significant proportion of Hong Kong's key personnel, and thereby make a real impact on the level of emigration from the colony. At the same time, the figure had to be one that Britain could honour if, against all our expectations, those granted citizenship decided to come to the United Kingdom to live. If they did, their contribution to the United Kingdom would be immense, as it has been to Hong Kong. I am saddened that, in the excitement of his verbosity, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) did not find a moment even to consider that aspect when he expatiated on the arrival of former Hong Kong residents in this country.
There is no precise science behind the 50,000 figure. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary explained on Second Reading, it was necessarily a compromise. We have to balance our duty to Hong Kong and to the United Kingdom, and we also have an ineluctable duty to both. Nothing that I heard today persuades me that the figures proposed by my hon. Friends are in any way an improvement on the Government's judgment. There would be no merit in a scheme that offered assurances to such a small number of people that there was no impact on the level of emigration and no spin-off in terms of confidence within the colony.

Mr. Marlow: What, in the Government's judgment, is the number of people who have been given these passports who will migrate to the United Kingdom, assuming that the relationships between Hong Kong and China, and between China and the United Kingdom, stay the same as now?

Mr. Lloyd: I think the number will be very low, as the hon. Member for Workington said.

Mr. Marlow: How low?

Mr. Lloyd: We have no precise figure, but it is small. Presumably my hon. Friend thinks that all 50,000 will come here, but if he talks to some of the people who would be in line for British citizenship under the scheme, he will find that they do not want to come here; they want to stay in Hong Kong, but they want the assurance that, if things go wrong, they will have somewhere to go. They do not want to spend time in Canada or Australia if they can have the confidence to remain in Hong Kong with British citizenship.

Mr. Tebbit: Let us suppose that things do not go quite as my hon. Friend expects them to. In this world it is possible that even a Minister in a Conservative Government can be wrong in some small detail. It is very

unusual, but the Bill shows that it is possible. Indeed, the Minister has admitted that he has been wrong on a number of occasions this evening.
Let us suppose that a large number of the people who are protected by British citizenship granted under the Bill decide to leave Hong Kong in the next three or four years. Can my hon. Friend assure me that under no circumstances will the Government come back to the House and say that another lot of people are now in the posts vacated by the first group, and that it is essential that they be maintained in those posts for the benefit of Hong Kong—so they would like to give a few more people citizenship? If the Bill fails in its intention of keeping these people in Hong Kong, will my hon. Friend assure me that he will not then ask the House to reinforce failure by granting another wodge of people British citizenship under this shoddy mechanism?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend knows that we intend to grant the 50,000 places in two tranches, so there will not be a "wodge" in the next year or two; some will be held in reserve. My right hon. Friend knows perfectly well that the Government can give him only one assurance: it is that they have no intention of coming back to the House to increase the number, but that if they ever thought that the number should be increased or decreased, they would have to return to the House, and the House, not the Government, would decide in the end.

Mr. Tebbit: If my hon. Friend finds that the first tranche results in people leaving Hong Kong with their British passports, will he persist with the second tranche?

Mr. Lloyd: This Bill will then be on the statute book and we shall judge carefully how it is working out in practice and then report back to the House. I do not expect the scheme to fail in the way that my right hon. Friend suggests. Like people in Hong Kong and those who have studied the issue closely, I believe that the Bill will make an enormous contribution to confidence in the colony, as is our intention.

Mr. Marlow: The figure of 50,000 is on the face of the Bill. If it becomes apparent that that number is not necessary, will the Government issue fewer passports?

Mr. Lloyd: If 50,000 apply and meet the criteria, 50,000 will be the number. That is set out in the legislation, and there will be no resiling from that. I know that my hon. Friend is extremely worried that they will come here, but I do not expect them to do so. The majority in the Conservative party, and certainly the majority in the House, realise that that would be a tragedy for Hong Kong but a gain for this country.
It follows that the Government cannot accept amendment No. 48, which gives the Secretary of State discretion to substitute at a later date a figure higher than 50,000. We have reached a judgment about the maximum commitment that Britain can honour without the risk of unacceptable strain, and the Bill reflects that.
1.30 am
Doubts have been expressed that the proposed figure is too high. I do not share those doubts, but nor do I think that the House would expect the Home Secretary to have the power to increase the scale of the scheme without further legislation.

Mr. Butcher: If my hon. Friend craves your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he may wish to make a further observation to those who have listened carefully to his earlier comments. Are the Government, in asking hon. Members to support the Bill, saying that they have no intention whatever of returning to the House with another Bill and further primary legislation if they get their sums wrong about 50,000 people exercising their rights before 1997? I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said. I think he said that the Government had no such intention, but we know that that phrase cannot be guaranteed. I am asking whether that phrase can be firmed up a little and whether he is prepared to give an undertaking to the House that under no circumstances will that 50,000 figure be exceeded.

Mr. Lloyd: What I said was perfectly clear and there is no need for me to repeat it.
Amendment negatived.

Mr. Tebbit: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'after 30th June 1997' and insert 'before 1st December 1992'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 46, in page 1, line 10, at end add
'or before 1st December 1993'.
No. 13, in clause 5, page 3, line 17, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
'(4) This Act shall come into force on 1st December 1992 if before that date its coming into force has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
No. 19. in page 3, line 19, at end insert
',provided that the Secretary of State may not appoint a day before 1st January 1993, and that, before any day is appointed for the commencement of any of the provisions of this Act, such commencement has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
No. 23, in schedule 1, page 4, line 30, after 'dates', insert `no earlier than 1st January 1993'.

Mr. Tebbit: The amendments have been grouped together because they all propose to delay the coming into operation of the Bill, either its taking effect or the issue of passports under it.
Amendment No. 13, although the drafting is defective, would ensure that the Bill could not take effect before there had been a vote in both Houses of Parliament following the next general election. That would allow my right hon. and hon. Friends, and indeed Opposition Members, to include in their election manifestos the pledge that they would enact this legislation, thereby allowing people to vote on it. That would be the decent thing to do and would give greater legitimacy to the Bill, which, as we have all agreed, breaches a solemn undertaking given by the Conservative party, not once but four or five times in consecutive general elections, that it would not allow further large-scale immigration.
My hon. Friend the Minister argued that the Bill would not allow that, that it would not happen, and that he hoped it would not happen, but he cannot, in any circumstances, guarantee that it would not. Therefore, it would be appropriate to allow both Houses of Parliament to vote again on the Bill being brought into effect after there had been a general election.
This would be unique, because it would be the first time that British electors had ever been consulted on large-scale immigration into this country. In the past, they have not

been allowed to express an opinion about these matters, except in so far as they have done so by voting Conservative rather than Labour. Those who did so in the expectation that there would be tough immigration controls must be deeply upset and offended today.
One amendment provides that the passports issued should not have validity before 1997. Once again, the logic of my hon. Friend the Minister is followed. He says that the people of Hong Kong have no wish to use these passports and leave Hong Kong, and they would certainly not do so unless things went very wrong when the Chinese took over in 1997. In those circumstances, there is no need for their passports to be valid until then. What possible reason could they have to want the passports to be valid until then? I do not mind them being issued to give an assurance in case a Labour Government might renege on the promises given. After all, everyone knows that Labour Governments always renege on their promises.
What reason could there be for a Hong Kong Chinese citizen to want his British passport to be valid until the day he wants to leave Hong Kong, not for the purpose of business but to establish a new life elsewhere? As the causes that might bring him to that conclusion could not conceivably arise until 1997—because until then Hong Kong would be entirely safe under British colonial rule —why should he need the passport to be valid?
The amendment provides a good, alternative way of assuring the public in Britain that the intention really is to ensure that these people stay in Hong Kong, unless events after the Chinese take over compel them to leave. There may be people who want to use these passports almost as soon as they get them and to use them as travel documents which would enable them to take up residence in other parts of the world, even if not in Great Britain.

Mr. Maude: I understand the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). It is essentially that the Bill's provisions should not be brought into effect until—depending on the amendment one looks at—two and a half or three years from now. We have introduced the Bill at this stage because there is a problem now. The rate of emigration of key people from Hong Kong is high and continues to rise. That haemorrhaging of talent and skill from the territory is causing great damage. We have judged—opinion in Hong Kong supports this view—that immediate measures are necessary to stem that flow. To delay the ability to award British citizenship for the period suggested by my right hon. Friend would not have stem the flow in the way that the Bill proposes.
My right hon. Friend put his argument tersely, cogently and simply. The House will understand this simple issue. The Bill is an immediate remedy for an immediate problem. In those circumstances, I do not believe that the House should accept the amendment.

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend was kind enough to say that I had put the argument tersely, cogently and simply. I must say that my hon. Friend was terse and simple but not very cogent. He made a case against delaying the implementation of the Bill until after the next general election, but he gave no reason whatever why a Hong Kong citizen should wish the passport with which he had been issued, and which he held in his hand, to he valid immediately rather than in 1997. What on earth do these people want the passports to be valid for if it is not to leave Hong Kong instead of being persuaded to stay?

Mr. Maude: They want the certainty that the passports that they hold are valid and will give them the right to leave. An essential part of the argument behind the Bill is that, if people are to have the confidence to remain, they must have the surety of being able to leave. It is not enough to give people a document that does not come into effect until after a general election—with all the consequences to which my right hon. Friend referred. Particularly in the light of the utterances of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in the summer of last year—which were delphic, to say the least—that would not give them that confidence. Hong Kong opinion is unanimous about that. The purpose of the Bill is to renew and instil confidence in the minds of people in Hong Kong, and my right hon. Friend's amendment would deny them that confidence.

Mr. Marlow: Suppose that the exercise were undertaken. Suppose that the Governor allocated the passports and the Home Secretary accepted that the 50,000 passports—225,000 if wives, descendants and families are included—were valid. If each of them could be stamped with the words "this passport is valid from 1 July 1996", would not that be an adequate reassurance?

Mr. Maude: No, I do not believe that it would. We can argue about whether such as step would have that effect on 50,000 people in Hong Kong, and none of us can be certain that we are right. But I repeat that what the right hon. Member for Gorton said last year destroyed a great deal of the trust that people in Hong Kong had in what might, at some stage, be an alternative Government.

Mr. Tebbit: I can understand why my hon. Friend rests his case on the deviousness of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). On this issue, the only thing on which we seem to be agreed is that the right hon. Member is devious—I would go so far as to say particularly devious. But that is not a good enough argument. I do not believe that even a Labour Government—even a Foreign Secretary or a Home Secretary in the shape of the right hon. Member for Gorton—would withdraw passports that had been issued. My hon. Friend has still not given me an answer to my question: for what purpose would the passports be used before 1996 or 1997 if not to frustrate the purpose of the Bill? By suggesting that the passports should be valid for use before then, my hon. Friend undermines my confidence that even he believes in the Bill.

Mr. Maude: That is not the case. My right hon. Friend may be persuaded that passports carrying a delayed action stamp would instil the same confidence, and he might be confident that they would not be revoked. But all the advice and indications that we have had from those who might be the recipients of the passports in Hong Kong suggest that they do not have the trusting nature of my right hon. Friend. If giving people citizenship would not give them the confidence to remain in Hong Kong, which is the principal purpose of the Bill, there is no point in doing it.
I accept that it is a matter of judgment. Our judgment is—all the evidence that we have from Hong Kong supports it—that to incorporate the amendments in the Bill would be to negate the effect of the award of citizenship.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend the Minister said that the passports would be issued in two tranches. If, after issuing the first tranche, it becomes apparent that people are taking the first plane or the first boat out and taking advantage of the passports to leave rather than to stay in Hong Kong, will the Government not issue the second tranche?

Mr. Maude: As I recall, the same question was asked of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in the previous debate and he answered it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 1, line 11, leave out from 'may' to end of line 13 and insert 'direct the Governor to make not more than a specified proportion of his recommendations in a period or periods specified in the direction; and any such direction may make different provision in relation to'.
In Committee I promised the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) to consider clarifying clause 1(3). Amendment 47 is the result, and I commend it to the House.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed: No. 48, in page 1, line 24, at end insert—
'() The Secretary of State may by order amend subparagraph (1) by substituting a higher figure for the figure for the time being specified there if the Governor recommends that it is necessary to do so in order to maintain the stability of Hong Kong or the safety of its residents.'.—[Mr. Maclennan.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 16, Noes 217.

Division No. 233]
[1.46 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Livsey, Richard


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Maclennan, Robert


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Michael, Alun


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Skinner, Dennis


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Dalyell, Tam



Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kennedy, Charles
Mr. James Wallace and Mr. Ronnie learn.


Kirkwood, Archy





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Bright, Graham


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Allason, Rupert
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Amess, David
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Arbuthnot, James
Burns, Simon


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Burt, Alistair


Ashby, David
Butcher, John


Atkins, Robert
Butler, Chris


Atkinson, David
Butterfill, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baldry, Tony
Carrington, Matthew


Batiste, Spencer
Cash, William


Bellingham, Henry
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bevan, David Gilroy
Chapman, Sydney


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Chope, Christopher


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Churchill, Mr


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Boswell, Tim
Conway, Derek


Bottomley, Peter
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Couchman, James


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bowis, John
Curry, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Brazier, Julian
Davis, David (Boothferry)






Day, Stephen
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Dorrell, Stephen
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mates, Michael


Durant, Tony
Maude, Hon Francis


Emery, Sir Peter
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fallon, Michael
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Favell, Tony
Mellor, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fishburn, John Dudley
Mills, Iain


Forman, Nigel
Miscampbell, Norman


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mitchell, Sir David


Franks, Cecil
Moate, Roger


Freeman, Roger
Monro, Sir Hector


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Gill, Christopher
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Needham, Richard


Goodlad, Alastair
Neubert, Michael


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Nicholls, Patrick


Gow, Ian
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Ground, Patrick
Norris, Steve


Hague, William
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Paice, James


Hanley, Jeremy
Patnick, Irvine


Hannam, John
Price, Sir David


Harris, David
Raffan, Keith


Haselhurst, Alan
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hawkins, Christopher
Rathbone, Tim


Hayward, Robert
Redwood, John


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hill, James
Riddick, Graham


Hind, Kenneth
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Holt, Richard
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Ryder, Richard


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B 'wd)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hunter, Andrew
Shelton, Sir William


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Irvine, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Jack, Michael
Sims, Roger


Jackson, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Janman, Tim
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Squire, Robin


Key, Robert
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Stern, Michael


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Stevens, Lewis


Kirkhope, Timothy
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Knowles, Michael
Sumberg, David


Lang, Ian
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lawrence, Ivan
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Thornton, Malcolm


Lightbown, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Lilley, Peter
Tracey, Richard


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Tredinnick, David


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Trippier, David


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Trotter, Neville


Maclean, David
Twinn, Dr Ian


McLoughlin, Patrick
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Malins, Humfrey
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Mans, Keith
Walden, George


Maples, John
Waller, Gary


Marlow, Tony
Watts, John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Whitney, Ray





Widdecombe, Ann



Wiggin, Jerry
Tellers for the Noes:


Wood, Timothy
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Nicholas Baker.


Yeo, Tim



Young, Sir George (Acton)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 49, in page 1, line 24, at end insert—
'() Nothing in this Section affects the jurisdiction of any Court to entertain proceedings of any description concerning the rights of any person under any provision of this Act'. —[Mr. Maclennan.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 24, Noes 212.

Division No.234]
1.58 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Kennedy, Charles


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Maclennan, Robert


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Michael, Alun


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Nellist, Dave


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Robertson, George


Cryer, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Dalyell, Tam
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Darling, Alistair
Wallace, James


Dixon, Don



Fearn, Ronald
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Mr. Archie Kirkwood and Mr. Richard Livsey.


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cope, Rt Hon John


Allason, Rupert
Couchman, James


Amess, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Arbuthnot, James
Curry, David


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Ashby, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Atkins, Robert
Day, Stephen


Atkinson, David
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Durant, Tony


Baldry, Tony
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Batiste, Spencer
Fallon, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Favell, Tony


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fishburn, John Dudley


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Forman, Nigel


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Forth, Eric


Boswell, Tim
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bottomley, Peter
Franks, Cecil


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Freeman, Roger


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gill, Christopher


Bowis, John
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Goodlad, Alastair


Brazier, Julian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bright, Graham
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gow, Ian


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Ground, Patrick


Burns, Simon
Hague, William


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Butler, Chris
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butterfill, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hannam, John


Carrington, Matthew
Harris, David


Cash, William
Haselhurst, Alan


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hawkins, Christopher


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayward, Robert


Chapman, Sydney
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chope, Christopher
Hill, James


Churchill, Mr
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Conway, Derek
Holt, Richard






Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Paice, James


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Patnick, Irvine


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Price, Sir David


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Raffan, Keith


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hunter, Andrew
Rathbone, Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Redwood, John


Irvine, Michael
Ronton, Rt Hon Tim


Jack, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jackson, Robert
Rlfkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Key, Robert
Ryder, Richard


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knowles, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lang, Ian
Shelton, Sir William


Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sims, Roger


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lightbown, David
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lilley, Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stern, Michael


Maclean, David
Stevens, Lewis


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Malins, Humfrey
Sumberg, David


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maples, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Marlow, Tony
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thornton, Malcolm


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Maude, Hon Francis
Tracey, Richard


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tredinnick, David


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Trippier, David


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Trotter, Neville


Mellor, David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mills, Iain
Viggers, Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Walden, George


Mitchell, Sir David
Waller, Gary


Moate, Roger
Watts, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Whitney, Ray


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Widdecombe, Ann


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Wiggin, Jerry


Needham, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Neubert, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Nicholls, Patrick



Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tom Sackville.


Norris, Steve

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 3

PROCEDURE

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 24, leave out paragraph (b).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 11, in clause 4, page 2, line 42, leave out subsection (1).
No. 12, in page 3, line 2, leave out from 'determine' to end of line 4.

Mr. Taylor: I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will forgive me for saying a few words on a matter that involves the dignity and honour of the House and the country during our lengthy consideration of the Bill. Even though my right hon. and learned Friend may be tired and want to go to bed, I ask them to listen as I move a small amendment which means a great deal for the honour of our country and the integrity for which we stand.
The Government propose that the Governor of Hong Kong may by regulations provide for the payment, at a time to be specified, of fees for registration applications. In other words, the potential 50,000 Hong Kong residents who may want to come to Britain, to obtain British passports or to stay in Hong Kong with British passports could be called upon to pay fees. I ask the Government to consider that 40 miles away from Hong Kong there is a place called Macau, where there are 90,000 Portuguese citizens. Those 90,000, under dependence, will be able to come to Britain. They can come here now and work here. they can have full rights of citizenship and access to our social security system, and that will cost them not one penny.
It is not a matter of cash alone. There is also the factor of who those from Macau can bring with them. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will clarify the matter. Whom can a Hong Kong citizen bring with him? The answer is a restricted number of people. He can bring minor children under 18 years or 16 years and a spouse. The Government, in their desire to restrict the number of people coming into the country, have said, in effect, "You can only bring in a few." But what if someone is a Portuguese citizen of Macau? That person can bring a spouse, descendants under 21 years of age and dependants in the ascending and descending lines.
Whether we think the Bill is a good or bad measure I think that we must proceed with it now that promises have been made—we must have in mind the honour and dignity of the House. There is also the respect that we have for the people of Hong Kong and all that they have done for Britain. We should not treat them less well than we are treating citizens of Portuguese Macau.
Portuguese nationals abroad are treated in the same way as their French counterparts and they have the right of access to this country. For the citizens of Portuguese Macau the position is slightly different and the relevant date is 1 January 1993. Harsh words may have been used during the consideration of the Bill and the Government may not have made many concessions. I ask them to make only one concession for the sake of decency. How is it right to charge Hong Kong citizens a fee but not Portuguese citizens in Macau? It is not right. It is not just. Can they explain to me how it is right that a Portuguese citizen of Macau can bring far more relatives and older children without any restriction while citizens of Hong Kong will have to leave their older children behind? A citizen of Hong Kong might want to bring a son of 19 years with him. That is something that many of us would think about. What about our own families? The Hong Kong citizen will not have a chance of bringing his older children, but the Portuguese citizen of Macau will.
I appreciate that there are much wider issues that come within different treaties and that the Government cannot be asked to make changes for that reason, but surely they


will not enact a clause that provides that citizens of Hong Kong who are to benefit in some way from the Bill will be treated less well, and in a shabby way, compared with citizens of Portuguese Macau.
This is a small amendment and it is not terribly important. It is not an issue that will involve much of a clash with the Government. That being so, I think that they could make a gesture. We have obligations to the people of Hong Kong for the work that they have done for our country and for the help that they have provided. Surely they are entitled to be treated in a way that is not inferior to the citizens of Portuguese Macau. The numbers are different. We are talking about 50,000 in Hong Kong and 90,000 in Macau. I have no doubt that the Minister will say that the people of Macau will not all want to come to Britain, just as the Government have said that the people of Hong Kong do not want to come to Britain. I do not care if we are talking about 1,000, 10,000 or 20,000; we should not treat citizens of Hong Kong less well than the citizens of Portuguese Macau.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to make a small concession on a matter of honour and not of cash. I think that the decency of the British Government will be judged by the way in which they treat the citizens of Hong Kong.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Applicants for British citizenship from Hong Kong will be treated in exactly the same way as any other applicant for British citizenship. It has long been our practice to charge fees to cover the cost, and I see absolutely no dishonour in that. It is possible that fees for Portuguese citizenship are not charged in Macau; I do not know. But I do not see why we should follow the Portuguese in that respect, as in several others: it depends on the merits of the case. I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East considers it a matter of honour.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Surely there is a fundamental difference between these and other applicants. Applying for British citizenship from this country and applying from Hong Kong are rather different procedures. Does my hon. Friend accept that, under the Bill, someone coming to Britain from Hong and someone coming here from Macau will have exactly the same entitlements—that they will have the right to work and receive social security benefits? Surely there is a difference of principle.
If my hon. Friend accepts the amendment, the Government will lose nothing; we shall simply be treating all applicants in the same way.

Mr. Lloyd: People who arrive in Portugal from Macau could, if they were workers, have the right to reside and work here, but they would not be eligible for social security: I should perhaps underline that point, as it seemed to weigh somewhat heavily with my hon. Friend.
I do not think that honour is involved. I think that it is a matter of common practice. For those who apply for British citizenship, there is a scale of fees; a scale of fees would be set in Hong Kong. I consider that entirely appropriate, and I therefore suggest that the House reject the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Mr. Darling: In view of the lateness of the hour, I do not feel that I should embark on a long speech. Let me simply reiterate what I said earlier.
We made our position clear on Second Reading, and it was not accepted by the majority of the House. In Committee and on Report, we made a number of attempts to criticise the Bill constructively and, in our view, improve it; our suggestions were not accepted.
I do not propose to vote against Third Reading. I recognise that the Government have made an honest attempt to deal with a difficult position. None the less, I believe that that attempt is fundamentally flawed, and I therefore cannot support it.
I am sorry that improvements to the Bill were not made, but they may yet be made in another place.

Mr. Maclennan: Perhaps the most unsurprising thing about this Third Reading debate is that the Labour party has still not revealed its policy on Hong Kong. However, as the Liberal Democrats have well revealed their policy, both this evening and on earlier occasions, I shall not weary the House by expatiating further.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Coastal Pollution

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I am taking this opportunity to raise the question of pollution of our coasts. It will come as no surprise to the House that I want to concentrate on the coastal area of the Flyde, and I hope that others of my hon. Friends will make contributions on the subject.
Of course, we regret that the state of the Flyde coast has resulted in a decision to take the North West water authority to court. We also regret that there has been pollution for many years and that situation should be changed.
I want to say only this about the manner of pollution and taking us to court. I do not believe that that will do anything to solve the problems in the north-west or in the Fylde. However, I want to take this opportunity to try briefly to put some things right.
There has been a great deal of discussion and propaganda in the north-west about the state of our beaches, and from that one would think that pollution levels had got worse. In fact, with the exception of one blip, they have improved steadily during the 1980s. At the beginning of the decade the bacteria level was more than 4,000—I will not go into the details; I want only to draw attention to the change that has come about—and that is now down to about 1,200. That is better than for many years. It is not good enough and we must do better, but we can at least take encouragement from a fourfold reduction in pollution. I hope that we can get down to the required level within the near future.
I shall be brief so that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) and my hon. Friends the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and for Fylde (Mr. Jack) will be able to contribute to the debate. I am happy to give them some of the time that I am privileged to have tonight to allow them to make their points. I shall leave some of the details to my right hon. and hon. Friends. I simply want to draw a broad picture of what has been happening and to try to put right some of the misconceptions in the north-west.
There are two main issues. The first is where the new major treatment works is to be sited and, in addition, we must decide the process whereby water will be discharged. We have a water-borne sewerage system, and at the end of the day large quantities of water will have to be discharged.
Some things must be remembered. First, North-West Water has stopped having the lowest capital expenditure in the country, and now has the highest, because of the improvement in its infrastructure and its investment programme. That is in no small measure due to the fact that the Government, when North West Water was privatised, wrote off £1·6 billion of debt. Therefore, the Government have done their duty and have helped North West Water to face its problems.
There have been active consultations between the water authority and the local authority. They had a meeting two weeks ago when they spoke to the local authorities. What is more, we have had a promise, not from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who is on the Front Bench, but from another Minister in the

Department, that he will meet my colleagues, who are here tonight, and local councillors. So we have consultation with the Government and we are extremely grateful for their good will and co-operation.
Today we have also had a promise—although we have known of it for a little time—that £300 million will be spent by North West Water over the next three years to improve bathing beaches, and I emphasise that we are talking about bathing beaches. Clearly, North West Water is facing the problem seriously and is actively intent on improving the position.
The likely time scale is that, if there is good will, by he end of this year, and possibly before, the inland treatment works which is necessary now will have been decided upon. It should be said that it is now up to us in the north-west to agree. We have had arguments about whether there should be an outfall and other discussions. But now that we know that we are to have an inland treatment works, with an outfall, if we have the courage to fact up to the difficult decisions that have to be taken, by the end of the year, or possibly by next year, we will have a scheme which can then go ahead. There is every possibility that our problem can be solved, perhaps not in 1991 but possibly by mid-decade.
The Government are determined that we should stop being branded as the biggest polluter in Europe, and we are grateful for the encouragement that we have had from them. Others need to help us now. If we are sensible we can cure our problems, although they are difficult, within four or five years. With the good will of the Government and North West Water, that is exactly what we shall do.

Sir Peter Blaker: I want to make two brief points. The first concerns the European Community. I ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment to tell us now many other European Community countries are being prosecuted. I understand that every other European Community country, apart from Portugal, is in the same situation as this country in respect of prosecution. I want to dispel the impression, which is widespread in this country, that only the United Kingdom is considered by the Commission to be in breach of its directives.
There is also a proposal that polluted beaches should be signposted. Will signposting apply to all European Community countries? I hope that I shall not be told that only the United Kingdom will be obliged to signpost beaches that do not comply with the directive.
We should move forward with all speed to ensure that the bathing water off our beaches complies with the required European Community standards. Two points are relevant in that context. First, let all those in the north-west work together to achieve the objective that has been set before us. We should cut out the politicking; there has been much too much of it. Most of the politicking has come from the Labour leader of the Lancashire county council, Councillor Louise Ellman. I hope that she intends to keep quiet on the issue. Since the abandonment of the plan for a long sea outfall, she has called for a public inquiry. That would be wholly inappropriate; at the moment, there is nothing to inquire into because there is no plan. I hope that on both that point and others she will


keep quiet and that she will co-operate with all of us so that we can make rapid progress towards compliance with the directive.
Secondly, I hope that the Government will investigate the possibility of using disinfectants, either in the long term or in the short term. New types of disinfectants, known as benign disinfectants which do not have adverse spin-off effects, are available. If it is necessary to test them to find out whether they are effective, I hope that that will be done rapidly. I hope to take a representative of a company that manufactures these disinfectants to see the Minister. I am optimistic that their use will achieve the desired results.

Mr. Keith Mans: I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) for allowing me to take part in the debate. I thank also the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), for the recent decision by his Department to refuse consent for the construction of a long sea outfall at Fleetwood. That has been welcomed by all the people in Fleetwood. Like me, they believe that a long sea outfall, without treatment, is an unacceptable way to dispose of sewage in 1990.
That decision need not delay an eventual solution to the sewerage problems along the Fylde coast. What would have delayed the eventual solution would have been a public inquiry, as requested by Lancashire county council. From what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), I understand that, once again, a public inquiry is being asked for, despite the fact that we do not know what scheme North West Water will devise. I urge the leader of Lancashire county council to consider what she is doing, if it would lead to delaying the opportunity that we have to work together to find a quick solution to the problems on the Fylde coast.
I am encouraged by the attitude of North West Water, now that it is in the private sector. Right from the outset, it has consulted all the interested parties about its proposals. That is a good move. It is also clear that North West Water is no longer under the same financial constraints as it was in the public sector. It wants to get on with the job of devising the right scheme as quickly as possible. That can be done in co-operation with all the other bodies—the county council, the local authorities and other pressure groups. Together they can find a solution to the problem. If there were co-operation, the scheme could be worked up by the end of the year and considered by the National Rivers Authority. Construction could then start in May 1991. Dissension, however, could lead to the scheme having to go to the Department of the Environment. There might also have to be a public inquiry.
The action of the European Commission in taking the Government to court is of no relevance whatsoever to the time scale for the scheme on the Fylde coast. An inquiry would not in any way help to speed that scheme, and the Government being taken to court would not affect its time scale.
If everyone in the Fylde works together with the water company, we shall have an opportunity to find our own solution to the problem—and that solution holds out the prospect of cleaning up our coastline and rivers once and for all.

Mr. Michael Jack: I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Miscampbell) for allowing me to participate in the debate. May I tell my hon. Friend the Minister that beach and river pollution in the Fylde coast area has cast a blight over that lovely part of west Lancashire. If, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, the problem is not addressed quickly, the development of our vital tourist industry may be significantly damaged.
Not only do people question the wholesomeness of an area when there is endless talk of pollution, but it inhibits the development of facilities, such as the riverway marina, which starts in Preston. People wanting to use the water facilities offered by the Ribble doubt whether it is the right place to use while pollution is the subject of so much discussion.
The beaches of Lytham St. Anne's, in my constituency, are affected by the same pollution factors that affect my right hon. and hon. Friends' constituencies in Blackpool. My constituents send a very simple message to my hon. Friend the Minister this evening: they want to see the ending of raw sewage dumping into the Ribble. It is increasing the river's bacteriological load and does riot enable it to satisfy European bathing water standards.
The solutions are known. They are the ceasing of sewage dumping from the Fairhaven pumping station and improvements to the sewage treatment works at Preston. Both can be achieved quickly. North West Water has published a study on the river estuary that indicates a time scale extending to 1997. The message that my constituents have sent me is also simple: 1997 is not acceptable.
This is one case where the problems and the solutions are not cash-based. Since privatisation, money has become available to the water companies in large quantities and it can be spent on known technical remedies. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to do what he can to achieve quickly the requirements of the municipal waste water directive, which will finally allow North West Water to undertake the necessary design studies, in order that the resulting sewage scheme meets the entire needs of the Fylde coast area and at the same time cleans up the Ribble.
The argument is not about NIMBY but is about what I call the IMBY syndrome—"in my back yard". We all have responsibility, and I heartily endorse the comment of my hon. Friends that we must all work together.
I have a vested interest. When one is learning to sail in the Ribble, as I am doing at present, and capsizes one's dinghy and has to swim around in raw sewage, it brings home in graphic detail the problem that has to be dealt with.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend will forgive me, but time does not permit me to do so.

Mr. Jopling: Then perhaps my hon. Friend will come to Windermere instead; it will be more fun.

Mr. Jack: That is the imagery that we must address. That is the kind of tangible factor that must be confronted. The technology and the money are available. I ask for the co-operation of my hon. Friend the Minister in urging North West Water and the National Rivers Authority to


deliver as quickly as possible a solution for the benefit of our constituents, our constituencies and our tourist industry.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) on securing this debate and on the way that he forcefully set out the case for a clean and safe coastline for his constituents. I was also interested by the contributions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) and my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and for Fylde (Mr. Jack). On this and on many previous occasions, they have made my Department very well aware of the feelings of their constituents and of the need to improve the beaches and bathing waters along the whole coastline, not just that around Blackpool.
This debate is also attended by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). They have made known to me in private as well as publicly their concerns and their determination that something be done to clean up the coastline.
Nationally, we sometimes paint too gloomy a picture of the state of our rivers and coastal waters. In the United Kingdom, about 96 per cent. of our population are connected to the sewerage system and 83 per cent. of our sewage is treated. That compares well with any country in Europe. The problem for us lies in the discharges of untreated sewage to some coastal waters. Such discharges have a long history. Governments of all parties have received advice that in some cases they are not only acceptable but environmentally preferable. Such advice was given as recently as 1984 by the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, in its 10th report.
It is worth reminding ourselves that there is no method of disposing of sewage that is entirely free of some environmental cost. If we treat sewage, we need to find sewage works. They must be sited somewhere, and that can lead to contentious planning issues. The sewage sludge that results from sewage treatment must be disposed of to agriculture, it must be burned, or it must be land-filled. All those methods can be unpopular and controversial.
Nevertheless, we believe that now is the time to move forward. Following a consultant's report recently received by my Department, the Secretary of State decided, and announced on 5 March this year, that in future all substantial discharges of sewage would be treated. Most would receive secondary treatment, but primary treatment would be appropriate for coastal discharges when there was no adverse effect on the environment. This change of policy has been generally welcomed at home and abroad.
We have since moved quickly to implement this new policy. It will be expensive, but one of the great advantages of putting the water authorities into the private sector was that they now have access to private sector capital. We will take no lectures from our political opponents about this. Under the last Labour Government, capital expenditure on water treatment was halved. The financial position now is good.
We can look forward to a sustained programme of capital improvement. We have heard this evening of the urgent need to deal with the situation around Blackpool. Not only must we take into account the residents; we know that that town and the surrounding towns, have to cope with a huge influx of visitors during the summer months—not to mention a few party conferences in the autumn.
All this puts a considerable load on facilities, and we need to plan for a considerable expansion. So much has been known for some time. In 1988, the North West Water authority, as it then was, submitted plans to the Secretary of State for a scheme based on diverting sewage discharges from all existing sea outfalls to a new long sea outfall at Rossall point. That proved highly contentious, and some doubts were raised about the effectiveness of the scheme.
Following the change of policy that I have outlined, Ministers were not convinced that the scheme as proposed should proceed, and on 10 May my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State refused consent because the scheme did not incorporate treatment and there was no guarantee that a suitable site for treatment works could be made available within the design of the scheme. That rejection is entirely consistent with our new policy.
It is important to get on with the job of submitting a new scheme for treatment. I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends that calls for a public inquiry are entirely misconceived; there is nothing to inquire into. We need a new scheme to be submitted for planning consent, after which work could start. I hope that the scheme will be completed by the mid-1990s. That must be the priority.
I confirm to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South that, with regard to breaches of EC directives, we are not the only country to be subject to infraction proceedings. My advice is that all countries, except Portugal, are the subject of infraction proceedings. Britain is not alone in having to appear before the European Court of Justice.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South mentioned disinfectants, which may be a short-term palliative. There is some evidence that they do not destroy viruses, so they are only a short-term measure. As part of our policy, we are encouraging water authorities to consider improved screening and possible use of disinfectants until a proper scheme can be worked out and implemented. I welcome the way in which North West Water has announced that it will be bringing forward proposals, and much of the work that has gone into the design and construction of sewers will not be wasted, because exactly the same sewage collection system will be needed for a future scheme.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South mentioned the signposting of beaches. This is a United Kingdom initiative, but it will be voluntary. We shall not make it compulsory for local authorities to erect signs showing the bathing water quality of their beaches. In line with our policy of free and open access for the public to environmental information, we feel that this information should be generally available.
I hope that in due course, after the scheme is fully implemented, Blackpool and surrounding beaches will not only reach European standards but will perhaps proceed to designation as blue flag beaches, and there is no reason why they should not do so well before the end of the decade. In that context, I should mention that the award of a blue flag for a beach depends not only on the bathing


water quality, which is the duty of the water service company, but very much on surrounding facilities, such as information granted to the public, the fact that dogs are kept off the beach, the fact it is kept free of litter and the fact that other facilities are provided.
I hope that the local authority will use the next few years to ensure that the bathing beaches achieve the correct standards and to put in place the other facilities so that at the earliest possible date it can apply for blue flag status. I confidently expect that, well before the end of the decade, during one of my visits to Blackpool for the party conference, I will see blue flags proudly flying over those bathing beaches. If they are, it will be not because of

premature calls, possibly politically inspired, for public inquiries but because of the technical skill and enterprise of North West Water and the political skill and perseverance of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and other right hon. and hon. Friends who are present this evening, who have consistently argued for measured improvement in the beaches and coastal waters along that coast. Considerable credit must go to them for keeping this matter constantly before not only the water company but my Department.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Three o'clock.